Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Warwick (Tamworth Division), in the room of the Right Hon. Sir Arthur Herbert Drummond Ramsay Steel-Maitland, Baronet (deceased).—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Metropolitan Common Scheme (Pale-well) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords].

Stourbridge Navigation Bill [Lords].

Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bills the Standing
Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill.
London Passenger Transport Board Bill.

Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Harrogate Corporation Bill (by Order).

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill.

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL,

"to regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions of Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINING ROYALTIES.

Mr. MARTIN: 1.
asked the Secretary for Mines what steps he is taking to implement the decision of His Majesty's Government to crary out the unification of mining royalties?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend has at present nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) on the 1st April.

Mr. MARTIN: Would it not be a good thing if the hon. and gallant Member gave some indication as to what is happening in the meantime before a definite announcement is made?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question to the Secretary for Mines.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CANADA (PALESTINE FRUIT).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has now received a reply from His Majesty's Government in Canada to his communication with regard to the discriminatory duty charged on Palestine fruit shipped to Canada via the United Kingdom?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The recent Canadian Budget Resolutions extended to re-exports of Palestine oranges from the United Kingdom to Canada the duty free entry accorded to direct shipments from Palestine during the period from January to April of each year.

AUSTRALIAN MEAT (IMPORTS.)

Mr. LUNN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the negotiations with the Australian Commonwealth Ministers regarding meat imports into this country?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Discussions on this question are still proceeding, and I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

IMPORTED MACHINERY.

Mr. LIDDALL: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports of agricultural machinery, other than tractors, rose from 238 tons in March, 1933, to 478 tons in March, 1934, and to 1,022 tons in March, 1935; and whether he can furnish an estimate of the number of British work-people who would have obtained employment if the machinery in question, imported in March, 1935, had been made in this country

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am aware of the increase referred to. As regards the second part of the question, I regret that I am unable to furnish a reliable estimate of the kind desired.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Do not the figures show that no country can prosper without a successful agriculture, and will the hon. Gentleman remember that in future trade agreements?

Mr. LIDDALL: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of machinery in the month of March, 1935, totalled 6,326 tons as compared with 2,853 in March, 1933; and, having regard to this large increase, what steps he proposes to take to ensure that British workpeople obtain the employment represented by this importation of goods, the bulk of which could be produced in this country?

Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the facts referred to by my hon. Friend. If the industries concerned consider that further protection is necessary, their proper course, as my hon. Friend is aware, is to make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. PIKE: Are we to take it that if the industries concerned in home production do not continuously make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee the Government will continue to allow this very adverse balance of production to come from foreign countries in spite of the fact that we can produce the goods at home?

Dr. BURGIN: I hope that the House will not consider anything of the kind. We are discussing here increased imports of machinery, which are normally regarded as reflecting increased industrial activity.

COAL EXPORTS.

Mr. DAGGAR: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of coal exported from this country to countries within the British Empire, and to foreign countries, for the year 1934?

Dr. BURGIN: During the year 1934 the exports of coal from this country to British countries amounted to 4,113,000 tons and to foreign countries to 35,547,000 tons.

SPAIN.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the continued difficulties of British trade with Spain, he will arrange to give notice to terminate the existing Anglo-Spanish treaty in order to secure freedom of action in relation to imports into this country of Spanish oranges and other produce?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Preliminary discussions with representatives of the Spanish Government, with a view to the negotiation of a commercial agreement, were formally opened this morning. It is, therefore, to be hoped that a satisfactory agreement will be reached without the necessity for consideration of such action as my hon. and gallant Friend indicates.

Captain MACDONALD: How long notice will be required before this agreement is terminated?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to the existing agreement, three months' notice will be necessary to terminate it.

HOLLAND AND DUTCH EAST INDIES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been in recent communication with British trading interests with regard to the adverse treatment which this country is at present receiving in connection with its trade relations with Holland and the Dutch East Indies; and whether any steps are to be taken in the near future with a view to improving the situation?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent quotas have recently been imposed on foreign imports into the Dutch East Indies; what proportion has been secured for British imports; and whether, in view of the fact that the adverse balance of trade between Britain and the Dutch East Indies amounts to £3,250,000 in 1934, he is satisfied that an adequate proportion has been secured by this country?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The bases of the allocation of quotas in Holland and the United Kingdom respectively were fixed by an exchange of notes last July. As regards the Netherlands East Indies it is not the practice of the Government of that territory to fix quotas for individual countries other than Holland. I am in close communication with trade interests on the subject of the treatment of United Kingdom exports in Holland and the Netherlands East Indies, and the question of the best method of promoting such exports is receiving active consideration.
and gallant Friend satisfied that the

Captain MACDONALD: Is my hon.
Dutch East Indies and Holland are giving fair treatment to this country?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am investigating what methods can be adopted to improve our position in that market.

TRADE MARKS.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when His Majesty's Government propose to introduce a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations made in the report, dated the 20th April, 1934, by the Departmental Committee on the Law and Practice relating to Trade Marks appointed by the Board of Trade in January, 1933, having in view that the commercial and industrial interests concerned represented to the committee that some of the legislative changes recommended in the report were matters of importance and urgency, and that the committee in its report accepted these representations as well-founded?

Dr. BURGIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on the 10th April to the hon. Member for Wirral (Sir C. Clayton).

Mr. LEWIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as the law stands at present dishonest traders can with impunity make indirect use of trade marks which are not their own property, and does he realise that a reform of the law in that respect is an urgent matter?

Dr. BURGIN: That is a rather general statement, but on the 10th April the answer given was that preparatory work for the necessary legislation is in hand, so that my hon. Friend's point is covered.

IMPORT DUTIES (FOODSTUFFS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 36.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of duty paid on potatoes and tomatoes during 1934, and comparable figures for 1932 and 1933?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The approximate amounts of duty collected on potatoes and fresh tomatoes
during each of the calendar years 1932, 1933 and 1934 were as follow:



1932
1933
1934



£
£
£


Potatoes
354,000
424,000
338,000


Fresh Tomatoes
391,000
298,000
312,000

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. PALING): 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of duty paid on all classes of food imported into this country during the past 12 months and comparable figures for the previous year.

Mr. COOPER: The approximate amount of Customs duties collected on foodstuffs, including feeding stuffs for animals (which cannot be separately distinguished) and tea, coffee and cocoa was £32,351,000 during the calendar year 1933, and £32,590,000 during the calendar year 1934.

Mr. LYONS: Is it not a fact that there is an ample supply of food from home and Imperial sources free from any taxation whatever?

Oral Answers to Questions — INSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) ACT.

Mr. WHITE: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as a result of his further consideration of the affairs of the Anglian Insurance Company and other insurance companies now being wound up under the Assurance Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1933, he now proposes to promote legislation to protect the public and policy holders in future?

Dr. BURGIN: The matter is under active consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (EDUCATIONAL CORPS).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 14.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has yet received the recommendations of the committee appointed to examine the promotion situation in the Army Educational Corps?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The committee which has been dealing with this question has recently presented its report, and the recommendations are now being considered by the Army Council.

Mr. LEWIS: Will that report be published; if not, will it be made available to Members of the House?

Mr. HACKING: It will be published to the Army and thus will be available indirectly to Members of the House, but, if my hon. Friend cares to put down another question, I will give him particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (FOREIGN PARCELS).

Mr. LIDDALL: 19.
asked the Postmaster-General why he does not think it practicable that parcels up to a weight of 20 kilos, or about 44 pounds, should be accepted for transmission by the parcel post to Spain?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTERGENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The present limit of weight for foreign parcels is 22 pounds, and special arrangements have to be made to deal with the heaviest of these parcels. I do not consider it desirable under present circumstances that weights in excess of this limit should be dealt with through the medium of the Post Office.

Mr. LIDDALL: Is the House to understand from the reply that what is the practice in Holland, France and Germany is not considered practicable by our own Postmaster-General?

Sir E. BENNETT: We do not consider it reasonable to ask our post office girls or for that matter our men to deal with these heavy weights. I cannot answer for all the countries mentioned, but as regards one, Spain, the parcel post, though normally under the Post Office, is really handled by the railways.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why is it that foreign countries can deal with parcels up to 22 lbs. and we can only send up to 11 lbs.?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (SPECIAL AREAS.)

Mr. LYONS: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received, and can now publish, any statement of results by the commissioners in the special areas?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): As my hon. Friend will be aware, the commissioner for England and Wales has issued a number of statements to the Press on particular aspects
of his activities. He feels, and I agree with him, that it would be premature to make any report on results at present. I understand that the commissioner contemplates submitting to the Government a general report on his work up to the end of June and my intention is that this should be published. Any questions regarding the commissioner for Scotland should be addressed to the Secretary of State.

Mr. LYONS: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend that some time shortly after the end of June a public statement will be made?

Mr. LIDDALL (for Mr. MITCHESON): 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now furnish an estimate of the expenditure likely to be required for the current year for the special areas?

Mr. COOPER: I am unable at present to add to the information furnished in the Estimates presented to the House, numbers 11 and 16 of Class V.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOURS OF WORK (REDUCTION).

Mr. LYONS: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any further statement of progress regarding his conversations with industrial representatives with regard to a shorter working week or any proposals for work distribution?

Mr. STANLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker).

Mr. LYONS: Could my right hon. Friend consider making from time to time some interim statement as to the results of these negotiations?

Mr. STANLEY: I will consider that suggestion, but the important thing is the eventual result, and I think that any interim statement about consultations of this kind are not likely to be helpful.

Mr. THORNE: In the course of his conversations, has the right hon. Gentleman discussed the question of a reduction of working hours without reduction of pay?

Mr. STANLEY: That is one of the principal topics round which these conversations centre.

Oral Answers to Questions — TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM (INQUIRY).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the committee inquiring into the working of the two-shift system have made their report; and, if so, when it will be published?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): No, Sir, but I understand that the committee are now considering their report and hope to submit it at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR INSURANCE (CONVICTIONS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 23.
asked the Home Secretary the number of convictions for failure to insure against third-party risk during 1934 and 1933?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Return of Offences relating to motor vehicles which was presented to Parliament on 14th May last shows that during 1933 there were 12,486 convictions for failure to insure against third-party risks and that in a further 2,451 cases the court found the charge proved but disposed of it under the Probation of Offenders Act without proceeding to conviction. The corresponding figures for 1934, subject to final correction, are 13,642 and 2,451.

MOTORING CONVICTION (APPEAL).

Miss CAZALET: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to make a statement with regard to the case of Mrs. Clementina Burns, who was fined £2 for exceeding the speed limit of 30 miles when she was taking an urgent case to a local maternity home?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that the case is to be the subject of an appeal to Quarter Sessions, and while the appeal is pending I cannot make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR DEFENCE MEASURES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now give any further information as to the terms of the instructions which are to be issued by the Air Raids Department of the Home Office to local authorities; and by what date it is anticipated that local services will begin to be organised in this connection?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not yet in a position to acid anything to the statement which I made on the 16th instant in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander).

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in honour of the King's Jubilee His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of Canada has decided to remit one month from the sentence of every prisoner serving six months or over; and if he will sympathetically consider a similar proposal for this country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the 7th February to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).

Mr. MARTIN: 32.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider arranging, with Mr. Speaker's consent, that Mr. Speaker's coach should be placed on view in a convenient place so that the public may have an opportunity of inspecting it at some time during the period of the Jubilee celebrations?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion and have made certain inquiries, but, owing to the size of the coach, it has unfortunately not been possible so far to find a convenient place which would be suitable for its exhibition.

Mr. MARTIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman still considering other places? Is he still pursuing inquiries?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, I am still pursuing inquiries.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not time that this antiquated vehicle was replaced by a really respectable motor car?

Mr. THORNE: Would there be any difficulty about placing the coach outside Mr. Speaker's house, so that everybody could have a look at it?

Oral Answers to Questions — DURHAM UNIVERSITY (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. MARTIN: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can announce the
probable date of the appointment of commissioners to form a new constitution for Durham University?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Government have decided to introduce early legislation to set up commissioners to prepare Statutes in general accordance with the Commission's recommendations.

Mr. MARTIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether "early legislation" means this summer or before the end of the Session?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend hopes to introduce the Bill in another place before Whitsuntide.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG.

Mr. MANDER: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present situation at Danzig; and whether any report or appeal has been made with regard to the recent elections to the Council of the League of Nations?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. My right hon. Friend has no statement to make on the present situation in Danzig. His Majesty's Government have not received from the Secretariat of the League of Nations copies of any report or appeal which may have been made to the Council of the League with regard to the recent elections.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY (NAVAL REQUIREMENTS).

Mr. MANDER: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement with reference to the arrangement being made for a discussion with Germany in London of German naval requirements, when this will take place, what the scope will be, and who will represent the two Governments?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: During the visit to Berlin, an invitation was addressed to the German Government to hold informal conversations in London on future naval requirements. No date for such meeting was fixed and the matter is still under consideration.

Mr. MANDER: Is it a fact, as stated to-day, that the German Government have asked for a postponement of the conference for a few weeks?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will make inquiries of my right hon. Friend and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. MANDER: Do the Government consider that any useful purpose is served by holding the conference in present circumstances?

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Have the Government any information about the alleged construction of submarines in the meantime?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will make inquiries and communicate with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (IRAQ PETROLEUM COMPANY).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the report from the High Commissioner regarding the dispute between the Iraq Petroleum Company in Palestine and their employes; and, if so, will he state its nature?

Sir WALTER WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has received a report from the High Commissioner regarding this dispute. The dispute was settled on the 10th of March and the settlement covers a large number of points governing the conditions of service of the Company's employés. The settlement appears to have been amicably reached, and my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that it is not fair to both parties.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask his right hon. Friend whether it will be possible for us to have a copy of the settlement placed in the Library?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: My information is that this report has only just been received by my right hon. Friend, and I suggest to the hon. Member that he should put a further question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he
has any statement to make with regard to the World Economic Conference?

Mr. COOPER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. Adams) on the 25th February last, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN POLICY.

Mr. MANDER: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state whether it is proposed to take any action with regard to consulting the leaders of the Opposition to see how far it is possible to arrive at general support of a foreign policy based on collective security and arms limitation through the League of Nations, in view of the gravity of the international situation?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can add nothing to the answer which was given to the hon. Member in reply to his question of the 10th April last.

Mr. MANDER: Were not the leaders of the Opposition consulted by the Labour Government in circumstances of far less gravity in 1930?

The PRIME MINISTER: That was a supplementary which was put then, and I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWER OF LONDON (YEOMEN WARDERS).

Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. NEIL MACLEAN): 15
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether he will state which trade union has endeavoured to make representations on behalf of the warders of the Tower of London; whether they have been allowed to do so; and, if not, what reason has been given for such refusal;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the parchment warrant which the warders at the Tower of London receive on their appointment reserves to them their full civil liberties, he will remove the ban placed on them, and give them the right of collective bargaining in the consideration of any grievances which they may wish to have considered; and, if riot, whether he will state what grounds exist for refusing the rights that are enjoyed by all
other civil servants, established and unestablished;
(3) whether he is aware that when consolidation of the Civil Service bonus was put in operation during 1934, and the minor grades of the service were brought into line with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, the warders of the Tower of London enjoyed the same privileges; and what reasons exist for refusing them the full rights and privileges of civil servants?

Mr. HACKING: The Yeomen Warders of the Tower of London are retired warrant officers or senior non-commissioned officers of the Army or Royal Air Force, and are appointed by the Constable of the Tower. Their appointments are in the nature of rewards for military service, and are subject to the Regulations for the Tower of London, which state that they are on the same footing as serjeant-majors of the Army, and that their discipline is to be maintained in the same way as that of non-commissioned officers serving with their regiments. They have police duties, and are sworn in as constables. It would be inconsistent with the status of a body of this kind to allow representations regarding their pay or conditions to be made by a trade union, and the Transport and General Workers' Union, which has endeavoured to make such representations, has been so informed. These conditions are in no way inconsistent with the Warders' Warrant of appointment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. PALING): 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement as to his reasons for not supporting the request of the Ethiopian Government for the immediate consideration by the Council of the League of Nations of the dispute with Italy, under Article 15 of the Covenant?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The meeting of the Council to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a special meeting called at the request of France for a particular purpose and was quite distinct from the ordinary session of the Council to be held next month when the Italo-Ethiopian question comes up. The Council unanimously decided that in the light
of the assurances of both parties that they intended to give effect to the conciliation procedure laid down by Article 5 of the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of Friendship of 1928, there was no justification for advancing the consideration of this question and adding it to the agenda of the special meeting. My right hon. Friend, however, urged that this decision should be on the assumption that before the Council reassembled next month the four conciliators called for by the Treaty should be appointed and their terms of reference agreed upon. The President requested the Italian and Ethiopian representatives to bear this in mind.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is proposed to appoint a chairman as a fifth member, in order that a decision may be arrived at?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I understand it has not been decided yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — CARDIFF (COLOURED MAN'S DEATH).

Captain A. EVANS: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information regarding the outbreak of a rare and complicated disease reported to have affected a number of coloured men in the Bute area of Cardiff, some of whom were engaged in the filming of "Sanders of the River," resulting in at least half a dozen deaths?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The answer is in the negative. Inquiries which have been made have failed to confirm the occurrence of any such outbreak as that referred to in the question. My right hon. Friend is informed that only one coloured man has recently died in this area and the cause of death was found after a post-mortem examination to be arteriosclerosis and aortitis.

Captain EVANS: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the report of the Cardiff medical officer of health, which was published in the "Western Mail" four days ago?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We have naturally been in touch with the public health authorities in the area, and the information I have given is based on their report.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the urban district council of Urmston for and in connection with the improvement, health, good government, and finances of their district; and for other purposes." [Urmston Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]

URMSTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee [TWENTYTHIRD DAY—Progress, 29th April.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Establishment and constitution of Indian Tariff Board.)

Motion made, and Question proposed [29th April], "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Mr. Thorp.]

Question again proposed.

3.11 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: There are two or three further points which I wish to address to the Government on this very important new Clause. The speech of the Under-Secretary of State for India yesterday contained observations about the Fiscal Convention, and the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) also made pertinent observations about that Convention. It is a little difficult to know from those two speeches what is the position in relation to that Convention. The Noble Lady, referring to the report of the Statutory Commission, said:
The Report goes on to say,
'but as a member of His Majesty's Government he cannot divest himself of responsibility for ensuring that no such measure'—
that is a tariff measure—
'cuts across general Empire policy or is so unfair to any constituent part of the Empire as to bring India into conflict with it. This responsibility he can, in the last resort, fulfil by exercising his right of advising the Crown to disallow the measure, if passed.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1935; col. 146, Vol. 301.]
The Under-Secretary, when replying, said that the Government still stood by the spirit of the Fiscal Convention. I am paraphrasing his words, but I have the exact quotation, should it be required. I should like to ask the Attorney-General where the Government now stand with regard to the Fiscal Convention. The Noble Lady takes one view and the Government take quite another view of what the Fiscal Convention means. If an Act were passed which cut across Empire policy, it would, according to the spirit of the Noble Lady's interpretation, be
the duty of the Secretary of State to interfere and to disallow that act. I want to get this matter cleared up. Members from Lancashire were comforted by the observations of the Under-Secretary, but one would like to know definitely before this Debate closes whether the Government take the view that after this Bill has come into force the Secretary of State will still have power to disallow any action of the Indian Government of a fiscal kind which cuts across Empire policy. This question raises the whole issue as to fiscal safeguards which are not embodied or enshrined in any legislation, and we ought to know where we stand on that point. It is no use, when a critical situation arises, perhaps in 10 years' time, to say that there has been a mistake because the Under-Secretary's interpretation and that of the Noble Lady were at cross purposes.
I should like to know the interpretation which the Government accept upon the Fiscal Convention. Do they consider that it would be the duty of the Minister to exercise the powers defined by the Statutory Commission and stated by the Noble Lady? If the Government take that view, do they consider that when the Act comes into force the position will remain the same, or will all previous conventions be overridden by the Constitution Act? If the answer be that the Government take the view that the Fiscal Convention will still be operative, why should they not say so in the statute, so that there can be no mistake hereafter? Why not lay down in the statute exactly where we stand, instead of having to argue in the future about what will then be doubtful, even if it be not so now. Assuming that the Fiscal Convention, in the sense that it was referred to by the Noble Lady, has no relevance after the Bill has been passed, am I right in saying that no trade safeguards are provided for this country other than those contained in the Bill? I should like an answer on that point.
The Under-Secretary made observations about the exchange of communications between the two Governments. He soothed us ever so cunningly—not, I am sure, with any intention to deceive, but it may have that effect, however unwittingly—when he said that there are always exchanges of communications between two Governments, if they happen
to disagree with one another, such as the exchanges which have recently taken place between this country and Germany. If there be a dispute between two countries, each Government takes up the matter with the other Government, unless they are at war. Does the Under-Secretary suggest that the British Government will have any particular rights or privileges in taking up matters with the Indian Government which it would not have for taking matters up with France or Russia or with the Government of one of the self-governing Dominions? We ought to know whether the exchange of communications implies merely the normal channels which exist between two governments, or whether it applies to some further safeguards, if the conversations do not produce satisfactory results.
In regard to the proposed new Clause, I agree that as it has been drafted it is not entirely satisfactory. I do not mind admitting that we are not actually responsible for its literal drafting although it expresses our views. We are dealing with matters far too important for Lancashire for us to be tossed aside by legal quibbles as to whether the Clause is right or wrong in its phraseology. We deal in it with a very important principle. [Interruption.] I hear the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) ask what the principle is.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The hon. Member is mistaken. I did not say anything.

Mr. BAILEY: I very sincerely beg the pardon of the Noble Lord, but it is very strange that I should have mistaken the voice of somebody else for his. We are here maintaining a principle of very great practical and trading importance which we believe should be thoroughly ventilated. I do not desire to press the Clause, if we have an assurance from the Government that they will meet us upon the principle which is at stake. That principle is that, in our view, it is no use having a safeguard unless you have effective provisions for carrying out that safeguard. It is no use saying that you must not have any burglaries if you have no law courts and police to deal with the burglars; you must have some effective way to carry out your principle. What we complain of is that the Government, instead of saying frankly, as the Labour party say, "We do not want any
safeguards at all," put in a safeguard which in our opinion is going to be unworkable in practice. With regard to the Tariff Board, the hon. Gentleman made certain criticisms. One was this:
I feel that there is a great deal of justice in the warning of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) with regard to a board so radically different in its composition and method of appointment from that which exists at present.
The Board which exists at present has proved to be utterly biased and unfair, and would be no safeguard. I believe I am right in saying that its recommendations were not accepted by the British Government because they were so obviously out of harmony with the facts, and I cannot see why my hon. Friend should desire a board on the model of the present Board, which would not be of any assistance at all, but would only add burdens and might be the tool of a Ministry bent on imposing penal discrimination. He continued:
A board which was in fact subordinate to the Secretary of State would be at once suspect in India, and would not, I feel sure, achieve the object which hon. Members have in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1935; col. 162, Vol. 301.]
I fully agree. We do not wish for a tribunal subordinate to the Secretary of State; we wish for a tribunal above the Secretary of State, and above the Government of India—a tribunal which can fearlessly decide on the facts. I should be quite prepared to leave the matter to the Federal Court, but there must be some tribunal to decide on the facts whether a duty is penal or whether it is merely fiscal. Any fair tribunal could make that decision. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would be a perfectly reasonable appellate tribunal from any tribunal appointed. Would the Under-Secretary suggest that such a final court would be suspect in India on the ground that it was subordinate to the Secretary of State? Do the various Dominions resent appeals from their courts going to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? Why should we always assume that any tribunal other than one appointed by an Indian Ministry is bound to be unfair? What we are contending is that no safeguards will be of any value unless there is some tribunal which can decide whether the law has been broken. At present the decision is left to the Governor-General.
The Under-Secretary used another argument—that of delay. He said that it would be impossible to subject an Indian Ministry to the delay that would be involved if a board had to decide whether every item of their fiscal legislation was right or wrong, and, with the greatest respect, I entirely agree with him there. But if it be the duty of the Governor-General to stop penal legislation, why should he decide so much more quickly than a tribunal? Moreover, is it to be assumed that every Act of the Indian Government is going to be complained of? Not at all. We should be perfectly willing that there should be proper terms for the deposit of costs, so that if in fact there were any attempt to make vexatious use of such a tribunal, the attempt could be penalised in that way. But to suggest that the delay occasioned by the fact that an Indian Government might not know in advance whether their legislation was going to be allowed was a reason for not carrying out the Act effectively, seems to me to be an argument unworthy of the high traditions which my hon. Friend always seeks to maintain. If a duty imposed by the Indian Government were disallowed, it would be their own fault. If they put on penal duties forbidden by the law, why should Lancashire suffer, why should England suffer? Why should not those suffer, if suffering there be, who have done wrong? I cannot see any weight in my hon. Friend's argument on this question of delay.

Lord E. PERCY: May I ask my hon. Friend a question? I am only anxious to find out what is the proposal on which he is arguing. The proposed new Clause says:
The Governor-General shall submit to the Board any proposal to impose, increase, decrease, or abolish any duty of Customs or export duty, and the Board shall consider any such proposal…
He is now, I understand, arguing that no proposal to vary duties should be referred to the Board unless it is suspected that they are penal in intention.

Mr. BAILEY: I appreciate that point, and I agree that if I were arguing strictly on the terms of the Clause itself the Noble Lord's criticism would be fully relevant. But, as I said last night, and, as I have repeated to-day, I appreciate that the Clause in its present form is not one that
we could ask the Government to accept. But as you, Sir Dennis, indicated last night, what we are dealing with on the three or four Clauses which are being discussed together is rather the question of principle as to whether or not there should be some board to deal with this question of discrimination.

The CHAIRMAN: I must disclaim having given any indication that the discussion could go beyond the Clauses referred to. The effect of my Ruling was merely that anything might be discussed which came within the terms of some one of the four Clauses in question.

Mr. BAILEY: With great respect, Sir Dennis, I should not wish to misrepresent you or go outside the terms of your Ruling, but I would submit that my arguments are in order for the reason that the greater must always include the less. Any board such as is proposed in this Clause would in fact deal with penal legislation and with other things also, but I abandon that part which deals with other things, and retain that which deals with penal discrimination. The principle of the argument is enshrined in the Clause, although, unfortunately, it has not been set out as one would like. I would press the Government to make us some concession. I would ask them, if they cannot give us all that we ask, to give us sufficient to provide impartial machinery for dealing with penal discrimination. If they would do that, we should feel a certain measure of gratitude to them for it.
As has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming) and by the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam), this matter is raising wide and deep feeling in Lancashire. One realises that the discussions on the Bill have been so prolonged that it is difficult to detach those points which are of deep importance to us from those on which we know it is no use arguing for a long time, because the mind of the Government is made up. But I cannot help feeling that the Government will be making a very great mistake if they do not give us something which may afford a little greater security to Lancashire than she has at the present time. Frankly, we have no faith whatever in Clause 12 (1, f) as it stands in the Bill at present, and that is all that we now have to prevent discrimination. During the last 15 years we have seen one act
of discrimination after another. We all know that political discrimination has been going on. It has not been stopped, and we regard the machinery now being set up as insufficient.
I am sure that the Government, as practical men of affairs, must know that no Governor-General can possibly carry out that special responsibility. He is the King's representative. If a small duty is imposed, and certain people say that it is a penal duty, while the Government of India say that it is not, how can the Governor-General run the risk of a constitutional crisis for the sake of a 2 or 3 per cent. duty? It is eminently a matter that ought not to come before the Throne until it has been decided by some tribunal. Surely you do not want to bring the Governor-General into conflict with his Ministers over a question of fact. Where it is an issue of fact and there is no dispute of principle, the Governor-General has the task of deciding whether there is discrimination. The only question is to find out whether there is discrimination, and surely it is better that the responsibility for deciding that should not be put upon the Governor-General but upon a proper court of law. Where you have a question of policy, the Government of the day decides, but, do you put either upon the Crown or upon the Government the burden of deciding an issue of fact between India and the subjects of some friendly country such as the people of Lancashire? Here is an issue of fact to be decided as to whether or not there is discretion, and that issue should go before a tribunal. Unless we can get some safeguard, I am certain that all that has been put into the Bill in the way of safeguards, when it comes to the acid test of standing up to actual conditions, will be found to give no security whatever to Lancashire.
I apologise to the Committee for having spoken at some length, but we Lancashire Members would be failing in our duty if, at this critical stage in the history of our county, we do not do all we can to impress upon the Government the urgent necessity of doing something in this matter. If we fail to do so, the consequences will be upon our shoulders, but, if they fail, at any rate our hands will be clean, and the responsibility will in the future lie with those who fail to do their duty to their own countrymen as
well as to the subjects of His Majesty beyond the seas.

3.32 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I think that I can say at once that all Lancashire Members do not agree on this issue, and that I can speak for Lancashire with probably as much authority as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey). If the problem is one connected with the textile industry, I happen to have more textile mills in my Division than he represents. I doubt whether he has any at all. Manchester is just a place where they handle goods and make money by selling them. It is the manufacturers who send the goods to Manchester that I happen to represent. The Clause, moved presumably on behalf of the Lancashire textile industry, fails in two or three obvious respects. It would not achieve the object which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, because of some very simple facts. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause said that what was good enough for this country ought to be good enough for India, presuming I suppose that a Tribunal like the Import Duties Advisory Committee set up in this country ought to be imposed upon India by this Parliament. Hon. Gentlemen, however, make no provision at all as to the personnel of such a committee. I presume that they would like a committee to be set up in India to deal with this problem made up of representatives of Lancashire, transport them from the county of Lancashire to India, and allow them to decide what the Customs duty in India should be in connection with the importation of Lancashire textile goods. In fact, there is no provision in this Clause to preclude a court being set up in India made up of Italians or Germans or even Welshmen. This Debate reminds me of the tearing and raging campaign conducted in Lancashire some time ago by what is called the India Defence League. It is a sort of faint echo of the great meeting held at the Free Trade Hall to try and rouse Lancashire people in order to secure some safeguard against discrimination by the Indian Government. That discussion went on for some time, and, although I disagree with his political views, there is one gentleman who I think can speak for Lancashire very much better than all the other gentlemen who have spoken in this House. He is Lord
Derby, who came down at last in favour of the recommendation contained in the report of the Select Committee. The hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) rather favoured the point of view of this Clause until the other side was put to him.

Mr. BAILEY: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is raising a rather important point when he suggests that the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) and Lord Derby would support this particular proposal in the policy of the Government. I agree that Lord Derby would support the type of safeguard suggested by the Joint Select Committee, but has the hon. Member any authority for saying that Lord Derby either does or does not approve of the particular way in which the Government are trying to give effect to the report of the Joint Select Committee?

Mr. DAVIES: I would not dare to put words into the mouth of Lord Derby. He once upon a time represented Westhoughton, which I have the honour to represent. He made several important statements then, and I think he is quite capable of looking after himself. I am sure that Lord Derby speaks the mind of Lancashire very much more clearly and effectively on this issue than all the hon. Gentleman in this House can do. I do not think that even the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) dare stand up and dispute what I have said on that score.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I am glad to hear that the hereditary principle is so strong.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: Is that a recommendation for the peers? Does Lord Derby represent Lancashire?

Mr. DAVIES: I have heard hon. Gentleman use his name very effectively when they have thought it suited their purpose to do so. Let us see what the Select Committee have said. I am very pleased for once to support the Government upon the issue, because I am sure that there is no trade possible between any two countries in the world, except upon the basis of good will. If hon. Gentlemen wish to carry their views to a logical conclusion, why not argue for the setting up of a tariff board in Canada?
All the things about which they complain in India and what the Indian Government are doing against Lancashire are done very nearly in the same way in Canada and in Australia, but not quite so much in South Africa. I had reason to complain once to the Board of Trade that the Canadian Government are totally incapable of handling the problem of dealing with goods coming from the United States into Canada to be despatched to this country to the detriment of our home trade. I venture to say that there are men sufficiently clever and capable in India, and that hon. Gentlemen can argue how they like here and pass any law they like, but if the Indians are determined to get round these provisions they will do so as easily as they do it in Canada or Australia. There is therefore no possibility of increased trade between Lancashire and India except on the basis of good will. The argument of hon. Gentlemen is that we can practically compel India to buy Lancashire textile goods. We can do nothing of the kind. If the people of India do not want Lancashire goods, they will not buy them.

Mr. REMER: Does the hon. Member mean the good will of the Indian agricultural workers or of the workers in the Bombay cotton mills?

Mr. DAVIES: I was speaking of the good will of those who matter. Trade between Lancashire and India is already improving, I gather. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! The hon. Members who say "Hear, hear" pay tribute to this Government for that fact. There are, however, factors in connection with trade between nations that have not the remotest relationship to the colour of the Government in power. It is possible still for India to take more goods from Lancashire whatever Government may be in power. What has happened to the trade of Europe in particular? The world depression has come along and people are unable to buy commodities because wages and the income of the common people is too low. If this Bill can improve the conditions of the common people of India it will make an enormous difference to trade. It has been said that if everyone of the people of India could afford to buy only one yard extra of Lancashire goods, the mills of Lancashire would be humming once again.
Hon. Members complain that the Lancashire textile industry is not doing well. What has happened? I think I am right in declaring that there have been firms in Lancashire who have actually stripped their own mills of textile machinery and have shipped it to India, and that Lancashire machinery has been put into Bombay mills to produce the very commodities that we used to export. What could this proposed tariff board do to deal with that situation? It could not prevent that?

Mr. REMER: The hon. Member has made a very serious statement. Can he name one single millowner in Lancashire who has done such a thing?

Mr. DAVIES: Somebody has done it.

Mr. REMER: The hon. Member has made a serious statement, which may go out into the highways and byways not only of this country but of India. Can he name one single millowner in the whole county of Lancashire who has done such a dastardly thing as he has said?

Mr. DAVIES: I go further. I will make this statement, which can be verified, that capitalists in this country when they have found out that they could do better and get better returns have sunk their capital in textiles in India and other Eastern countries.

Mr. REMER: Can the hon. Member name one single capitalist in this country who has invested his money in that way?

Mr. DAVIES: This is what the Under-Secretary of State said last night:
Since 1914 we have exported £140,000,000 worth of machinery to India, of which this production is the direct result. Besides this phenomenon, there is the growth in Japanese trade. In 1914, the Japanese imports were 9,000,000 square yards, and in 1934 the figure was 349,000,000 square yards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1935; col. 170, Vol. 301.]

Mr. BAILEY: The hon. Member made a very serious charge. That charge, as I understood it, was this, that Lancashire mills have been stripped of their machinery and that machinery has been sent out to India. He is now making another charge, which may or may not be serious. Let us stick to one charge at a time. I ask for the specific withdrawal of the first charge, or the
hon. Member ought to cite one instance of the charge being true. I am sure that he is sufficiently fair-minded not to make a charge against capitalists or anybody else which he cannot substantiate. He has made a second charge, but whether that charge be true or false, it has no bearing whatever on the truth or falsity of the first charge.

Mr. DAVIES: Unless I am misinformed the facts can be got. I will make another statement which can be vouched for, and that is that manufacturers in Lancashire have sent their best operatives to Eastern countries to teach the Eastern people how to do the jobs that they were doing in Lancashire.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Why not? You believe in nationalism?

Mr. DAVIES: Hon. Members do not think there is anything wrong in that.

Mr. HARTLAND: Do you?

Mr. DAVIES: I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of it. What I say is that while the manufacturers and capitalists in this country are doing all that, they cannot at the same time expect Lancashire trade to improve.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I think the hon. Member is wrong there. What has, in fact, happened in innumerable cases has been that Eastern countries, such as China and Japan and in former times India, have offered very tempting terms to Lancashire cotton operatives to go abroad, and Lancashire operatives have gone there, but they have not been sent by capitalists in this country.

Mr. DAVIES: There are many ways of sending people abroad. Lancashire people know full well what is behind this new Clause. Hon. Members who support it have been using Lancashire trade for some time past in order to try to persuade the Lancashire people that the Indian people should not be given a greater degree of self-government. They have been using the argument that Lancashire is going to suffer unduly by the passage of this Bill. I am satisfied that trade between Lancashire and India will improve, not by imposing any restrictions upon the Indian people but by granting them greater freedom to determine for themselves what they want to buy. When they get that freedom in the world of
trade I think there is the possibility of Lancashire trade with India improving and being brought back once again to the point of success which it once held.

3.48 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I am sure the Committee will have been very much interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member. Members of the Committee know where these suggestions come from. When we hear the phrase that we must depend upon good will, we know who was the nurse of the baby which, unfortunately, was landed on the Government bench. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will go and wheel the "pram." The hon. Member cannot be congratulated on his advocacy, because in every single one of his great declamatory points which he was making against those who desire the establishment of this Tariff Board, he appeared to be unable to substantiate it. It is obviously true that a large amount of machinery has gone from this country to Eastern countries and other countries. Why? Because we have not taken the trouble to secure those markets in the East for British traders, and because we have been allowing our people to be driven out of those markets by vindictive tariff policies, whereas by strong action from the Secretaries of State in this country in the past we could undoubtedly have prevented that happening.
It was decided that we should have one general debate on the four different Clauses. That is very much for the convenience of the Committee, but it is a little difficult for those who are trying to get the Committee to concentrate their minds on two different matters. I should like to refer to the first Clause, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) who, unfortunately, is unable to be present. Failing any better proposal, or some improvement by the Government, I hope the Committee will insist on recording their vote on this matter as taking us as close as possible to the principle we are advocating. I was surprised to hear yesterday some hon. Members scoff at the Tariff Board as being suggested merely for the benefit of the representatives of Lancashire. If that were the truth, I should not regard it as a very great crime because I feel that it
is the duty of this House to look after the interests of its own people, but in this case it does not happen to be the truth. We are no more favouring Lancashire in this proposal than the British Tariff Advisory Committee in this country is favouring India. Of course, our Tariff Advisory Committee has a general duty to see that in any proposal it makes there will not be any serious reactions against India or any other part of the Empire. That is the purpose of this Tariff Board. It may not be satisfactory, and, of course, hon. Members on the Liberal benches are never satisfied with anything which comes from any part of the Empire, although they must be pleased with the recent decision of the Australian Advisory Committee. These advisory committees were set up by the Dominions as a result of Ottawa in order to promote inter-Imperial trade, and that is our sole purpose in advocating that a similar body should be set up in India.
The representatives of Lancashire are not asking for any special treatment for Lancashire, but for a fair field and no favour. In Great Britain we have adopted the machinery of the Tariff Advisory Committee, with the general support of those who are behind His Majesty's Government, in order to prevent any possibility of log-rolling in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or the Midlands. If that be the plan which we have adopted in this country, with our accumulated wisdom of government, surely it must be right to adopt a similar plan in India, because you in ay not have the same political education there as you have in this country. If log-rolling was to be feared in this country from the millowners of Lancashire—I am not suggesting for a moment that such has been the case—it must be important to see that nothing of the kind can occur on the part of the millowners of Bombay. Lancashire millowners are powerless, and Lancashire Members, even if they chose to do so, would find it difficult to make any impression on the Advisory Committee. I suggest that as we have established a happy and as I think the best possible system we can find in order to take tariff decisions out of party politics it is a plan which should be followed in India. That is what we are asking, and when the boycott in India is properly understood every one will appreciate how desirable
it is that any temptation should be removed from the textile millowners in India.
The Under-Secretary last night said that this procedure would be dilatory. That may be true. It is a criticism which has been made about the Tariff Advisory Committee in this country, but it is better to have a dilatory committee rather than take hasty decisions which will affect vast masses of population and dwelling in India. We are not afraid of that criticism. The Under-Secretary of State also asked why we do not make it obligatory to accept the findings of the Tariff Board.
It is obligatory to consult it on questions of tariff policy, but not to accept its findings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1935; col. 163, Vol. 301.]
He seemed to imagine that that dismissed our case with a gesture. It does not land us in any dilemma. That is precisely the position of the Tariff Advisory Committee in this country. We have an impartial tribunal which puts its proposals before Parliament, and we can endorse or reject them. The Under-Secretary also said that we must not impose this proposal upon India. Every Clause of this Bill is being imposed upon India. Does the Under-Secretary suggest for a moment that there is any section of organised political opinion which agrees with any of the Clauses of the Bill? The National Labour Conference and the National Liberal Association of India have reiterated their previous verdict upon the Bill. The Under-Secretary really cannot get away with it by saying that we must not impose a Tariff Board on India when day after day we have been imposing Clauses and decisions on the people of India contrary to their expressed will. We ought to insist on the very best and most enlightened method in the new Constitution, and this method, after all, is the very latest thing we have discovered. If you are imposing these various reforms on India, these Western ideas, we think that they must be of the very latest kind. The new Clause in no way infringes the spirit of the Bill. Anyone who desires an extension of constitutional reform in India can support the proposal and at the same time need not break faith with any promise he has made in regard to supporting the Bill. It simply says that what we have found best for the people
of this country should be good enough for India.
Let me now turn to the even more vital Clauses which are on the Paper and which we are now discussing. There is one in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and myself which deals with Imperial preference, and a second one which raises the question of the most-favoured-nation treatment. I am not going to deal for more than a moment with the second proposal, because I hope that the Government will accept the new Clause which lays down the principle of Imperial preference. I only put down the second proposal in case the Government decided that they could not support the principle of Imperial preference. The second Clause, which I am going to dismiss in a few words, merely demands that if the Government will do nothing more, they will at least give favoured-nation treatment to British goods in the Federation of India in the days to come. I apologise for even tabling the Clause, but the Committee will understand why I put it down.
With regard to the Clause described in the margin "Imperial preference," I hope the Government will accept the principle—I will not say the exact words either in my Clause or in that standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon. The Committee, I hope, will realise that this is almost the last opportunity they will ever have of dealing with this. Some of us who have been in this House a quarter of a century may deplore certain things which have been done, but do not let the young men who come here elected on the Imperialist ticket look back 20 or 30 years hence and have any cause of regret for the attitude we took with regard to British trade in India at the present time. The principle laid down in the first Clause of mine on page 1761 is that in framing this new Constitution we shall insist that it shall be on the basic assumption, if I may use the words of the White Paper, that Britain and India will continue to act in a spirit of partnership. Please note that in the Clause we ask nothing of India which we are not prepared to give to India ourselves; that is to say, we only ask that the preferential principle is adopted as long as we in this country are prepared to extend the same principle to Indian goods, and we seek
to insert the principle that India shall grant preference to Britain over foreign produce. That is the object of the Clause, subject always to the fact that Britain grants similar preferential advantages to India. Could any principle be more fair than that, and could any means be devised under which you could more certainly create a spirit of partnership between this country and India in the days to come?
The Under-Secretary last night said it was on the basis of Ottawa that they thought the trade between India and Great Britain was to be improved and developed. I was very glad to hear those words, but, if that be so, I ask him why he does not accept this Clause because it exactly covers the point? We had a very interesting discussion yesterday. We had the Under-Secretary saying to us that we really must not do anything to disturb the Fiscal Convention. I ask the Committee whether they realise that under the Fiscal Convention it was possible for the Secretary of State to intervene if he considered any tariff was unfair to this country, and although the evidence of his intervention has not been very great, it always has been there. At the present time, however, under this Bill you have no longer got the power or protection of the Secretary of State. Therefore, is it not really imperative that we should do everything in our power to see that this country shall have fair treatment in the days to come? We had numerous speeches in yesterday's Debate endeavouring to point out that the trade of Great Britain had been much improved, thanks to the Fiscal Convention and thanks to the action of His Majesty's Government in recent years, but do the Committee realise the tremendous drop in our trade, more especially Lancashire trade, with India during the period since the Fiscal Convention has been in being?
I would remind the Committee that the succession of Conservative and Liberal parties in this country right up to the War always held the view that our great services to India demanded that we should have equality of treatment in the market. That was always the accepted basis. I do not think hon. Members behind me ever got up and resisted the 3½ per cent. Excise duty. I think it was only when everyone was war
weary, when the late Mr. Edwin Montagu proposed those vast changes, and I do not think that Lancashire, which gave such contributions to the War, realised what was happening to her future, but 3½ per cent. was raised to 7 per cent., and then to 15 and 20 per cent. and now to 25 per cent. This is the fruit of the Montagu policy. The results can be seen to-day in the homes of almost every weaver and spinner in Lancashire. They are really disastrous. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) yesterday, and I think, also, the Under-Secretary, endeavoured to give the impression to this Committee that there had been a tremendous improvement in our cotton trade and our total trade in India in recent years. That really is incorrect. I am speaking from memory, but I think that between 1922 and 1929 the average figures of our total exports to India during that time were something like £85,000,000 a year, and in 1921 I think we exported to India well over £108,000,000 worth of goods. To-day, even with the very slight improvement since the boycott, the figure which the hon. Gentleman mentioned yesterday was £29,000,000 for goods other than cotton. If you add the cotton goods, I think it would come to £36,500,000, as against the average of £85,000,000 in the years to which I have referred. Therefore, your trade has gone down more than 50 per cent. in 10 years.
What is going to happen in the next 10 years with the decade of good will we are promised by His Majesty's Government? The price difference is not as great as the hon. Member imagines. If he will look into this matter carefully he will see it is rather extraordinary that in spite of sweated wages in India, to which reference has been so often made from the benches above the Gangway, in spite of the 25 per cent. duty, British goods are very little more than those of India. That was proved at the time of the boycott when Indians were preferring British goods if allowed to buy them, but men were permitted to be outside every wholesale and retail shop and tell people they would take their names if they bought British goods.
I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to offer these few remarks, but I do beg everyone in this Committee and the Members for Lancashire
in particular, also the Members for Yorkshire—because it is not only a Lancashire question—as this is the last chance we shall have, I think, of recording our votes on the principle, to say whether there shall be reciprocity in India in the days to come. I have given up 30 years of my life fighting far a certain principle which, I thought, was very dear to the whole Conservative party, and which swept the country on the last occasion by going all out for the idea of security for our manufactures at home and Imperial preference overseas. I do beg Members on this occasion not to sacrifice all those great achievements, but to support the principle embodied in this Clause, because I believe we shall never regret taking that decision. I believe it is just to India. I believe we are asking nothing which will be unfair to any Indian, and I believe we shall be doing something to promote the well-being not only of our country but of the people in the Indian Empire as well.

4.10 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: It is perhaps doing some Members of the Committee a bad service to take the various new Clauses together in this collocation. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) began his speech by saying that Lancashire asked for a fair field and no favour, and ended by saying that Lancashire asked for preference.

Sir H. CROFT: There are two different Clauses; I dealt with that most specifically.

Lord E. PERCY: I do not accuse my hon. and gallant Friend of being at all disingenuous, but it does make it a little difficult to deal with the question when one is dealing with two propositions which are completely different in principle. Perhaps I may say about the second proposal as to statutory Imperial preference that I do not think that those who hold the views I do can usefully argue with those who hold the views of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth. We have gone into this question as fully as possible, and we have decided what one would have thought was decided ever since the famous difference of opinion with the American Colonies, namely, that this Parliament cannot pass an Act imposing taxation upon any of its dependencies at
any stage of political development from the status of Crown Colony up to the status of fully self-governing Dominion. To say, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, that our principle is Imperial preference and that therefore we must, of course, agree to impose, in a permanent Constitution, a statutory system of Imperial preference upon one of our dependencies, is really playing with words.
If my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me, I will not concern myself any further with that particular proposal, but I do want to discuss the other proposal in regard to a Tariff Board. On that question there are genuine doubts felt in Lancashire. Of course, it is rather difficult to consider that proposal when one does not know what the proposal is. Two quite different proposals have been put before the Committee by different speakers. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth said he wanted to give India a Tariff Board on precisely the same lines as the Tariff Advisory Committee in this country. Apart from the fact that this new Clause does not do that at all, is that what he really wants? This Clause proposes something which is without precedent in any country, and is certainly not the Tariff Advisory Committee in this country. It sets up a Tariff Board without a report from whom no customs duty may be altered by the Government of that country. That is not the Tariff Advisory Committee. Does my hon. and gallant Friend still say that what he wants is nothing more than what we have found so beneficial in the Tariff Advisory Committee in this country, or does he want the new Clause?

Sir H. CROFT: We want what is in this new Clause. If the Noble Lord is prepared to find some words which are more suitable to carry out that ideal, we shall be very glad to have them. Otherwise, we can go forward with this Clause.

Lord E. PERCY: My hon. and gallant Friend wants what is proposed in this Clause. We are not here passing an ordinary piece of legislation which may be repealed to-morrow. We are passing a Constitution Act like the British North America Act. It is proposed to set up a Tariff Board, and that Board must be able to do something. Under this new
Clause there is nothing whatever that the Board can do except to hold up any action by the Government until the Board has reported on that action. What my hon. Friends want is not a board like the Tariff Advisory Committee in this country. Are my hon. Friends sure that that is the way to get the best tariff policy in India, having regard to the interests of this country? I have had some experience of tariff boards by watching them. My first experience was the Tariff Board set up by the least successful of American Presidents, President Taft, after the Payne-Aldrich tariff, with the specific object of revising the iniquities of that very high protective system. The chairman of that board, who was a friend of mine, was not, I agree, wholly innocent of any American party affiliation—you cannot expect that in America—but he was an economist of very high university standing. The only thing I can say is that it succeeded for three mortal years perfectly honestly and scientifically to hold up any sort of proposal for the revision of that tariff, and disappeared in consequence. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that under the regime of that board, in the words of the poet Dryden, "The men of Belial had a glorious time.'
I think that that is very much what may happen under any sort of tariff board, because it must be remembered that a tariff board always means the worst and most vicious thing in any system of government, namely, divided responsibility A Secretary for the Treasury, a Minister of Finance responsible for the financial policy of the country, and a board that he can always hide behind and always delay behind. After all, it has been stated by the present Finance Member of the Viceroy's Executive Council that the time has come when the whole of the Indian tariff ought to be revised from top to bottom. Would you rather have a, work of revision of that kind carried out by Ministers and departments or by a board which must hear all the evidence of all the affected parties, "until the cows come home." [Interruption] I am sorry if I used a vulgarism. I cannot always use the highly classical speech exclusively spoken by my hon. Friends. All that I wish to infer is that a board of this kind, having to hear evidence from every affected party, may
be relied upon to be protracted in its proceedings to an extraordinary and an indefinite degree.

Sir BASIL PETO: Does my Noble Friend think that that is the way the Tariff Advisory Committee works in this country?

Lord E. PERCY: I am trying to point out that the Board proposed is not like the Advisory Committee that we have in this country. It is totally different from the Advisory Committee in this country; it has a totally different function. It has to review every proposal to be made by the Government before it is included in the Budget, and that is a sufficient answer to my hon. Friend.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Would my Noble Friend accept the kind of board that we have in this country?

Lord E. PERCY: The only statutory effect of the Board we have in this country is to enable the Government of the country to pass its tariff through Parliament under a specially expeditious procedure. Do my hon. Friends wish to establish in India a Tariff Board which shall be a substitute for the Indian Legislature, a Board on whose advice Indian Ministers can enact new tariff legislation by Order-in-Council without any debate in the Legislature?

Sir W. BRASS: Provided the Board is appointed by the Governor-General.

Lord E. PERCY: I really would ask hon. Friends who speak like that to consider the present Tariff Board appointed by the Governor-General. These Debates have been full of the most violent attacks on the impartiality of the present Tariff Board in India. Who was the original chairman, the first chairman of the Board? An English member of the Indian Civil, Service, of quite exceptional Ability in these matters, and I think probably personally the best qualified man to be the head of an economic board of that kind that could be found in any country. He subsequently became Commerce Member of the Viceroy's Executive Council. Yet my hon. Friends throughout this Debate have been impugning him as a wholly and obviously biased and unimpartial person. After that, what weight can you put on the Governor-General's appointment in his discretion?
There is another point to be mentioned, and it deals with a question asked by
two of my hon. Friends. There is a special difficulty in resting your safeguards upon any tariff board in India. In this country, where you have a highly developed industrial system, in nine cases out of 10 and Almost in 99 cases out of 100 you are protecting an established industry which is threatened by foreign competition. In India I should think that in nine cases out of 10 you are asked to protect an infant industry which is seeking to establish itself. Infant industries have the peculiarity in many cases that they are unable to offer strict evidence as to their prospects and as to the exact height of the tariff that they require. The establishment of a tariff for an infant industry is above all things a matter for statesmanlike judgment and not for economic theory, and the question as to what is an appropriate tariff in India is the most difficult problem of statesmanship in the world at the present time. I have no doubt that the balance at the present moment presses too heavily towards industrialisation. I have no doubt that if some of my hon. Friends had their way, from the point of view of India, the balance would be depressed excessively on the agricultural side. The increase of population in India does, unfortunately, demand a certain measure of industrialisation. When you are dealing with that sort of proposition you must remember that it is far safer to rely on the individual judgment of statesmen than on the theories of an economic board.
Finally, I come to the other proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey), which is totally different from the proposition of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth. He realises the difficulty of this proposal. Therefore, he suggests—it is a proposal much more worthy of consideration—that the Viceroy in the discharge of his special responsibilities under Clause 12 (f) shall have a board appointed by himself to whom he can refer a question in order to discover whether there is penal treatment or not. That is a much more defensible proposition. I would say to the hon. Member for Gorton that he was unworthy of himself when he said that Lord Derby and my hon. Friend the Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall) had voted in favour of the proposals of the Joint
Select Committee on this question, but had not supported the proposals of the Bill. I ask my hon. Friend to point out to me one respect in which the Bill and the Instrument of Instructions, taken together, do not verbally and exactly carry out the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee in this matter. Can my hon. Friend point that out to me?

Mr. BAILEY: I frankly confess to the Noble Lord that that particular question takes me by surprise. I cannot at the moment answer yes or no, but I fully accept his assurance when he says that there is no difference. In regard to what I said in reply to the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), since the matter has been raised let me state that I did not for one moment say what were Lord Derby's views or the views of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall). I merely asked the hon. Member for Westhoughton whether he had any authority to say that either of those two distinguished gentlemen would have supported the proposals of the Government in this particular form. That is exactly what I said.

Lord E. PERCY: Nor do I desire to hide behind anyone on a matter like this, but as regards the identity of the Government proposals with the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee let me say that I have read the proposals again within the last quarter of an hour, and I cannot see the slightest difference, even down to points of verbal imitation. Let me point out to the hon. Member that the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee was that the Governor-General should have a special responsibility for deciding in his discretion whether the intention of a particular proposal was political or economic. That is the whole essence of what the Governor-General will have to decide in deciding whether a proposal is penal. That is a proposition which a man of common sense, in close touch with the political situation, can always decide. It is like the question whether a man is a gentleman or not, a thing which is not provable in a court of law but is perfectly well known to everyone. But to whom else are you to submit this question of whether a duty is penal or not? My hon. Friend suggests that it could be submitted to the Federal Court. How are you to prove before a court that the
motive of a proposed duty is penal. The only thing you could do would be to submit the question, not to a court of lawyers but to a court of economists, to decide whether there was any economic reason for the proposed duty, and if there was no economic reason you would say that it was merely political.

Mr. BAILEY: In regard to what the Noble Lord has just said, I agree that it would be easy to recognise whether or not a particular proposal conflicted with the Act. The whole point of my argument was that the Governor-General would be placed in a very embarrassing position in recognising it. He will have a great many other matters to consider besides this specific matter, whereas the tribunal would not be in any such embarrassing or difficult, position. That is why I prefer the tribunal—not because I think that a particular type of expert is required to solve the problem, but because the problem requires independence and freedom from other problems.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member interrupted me too soon. I was about to say that the result of asking any tribunal, whether of economists or lawyers, to decide whether there was or was not any economic argument in favour of a proposed duty, would always be to find that it was possible to adduce economic arguments in favour of that particular duty. I never heard of a duty proposed by the most log-rolling Congress politician in America, for which apparently weighty economic arguments, though quite fallacious economic arguments, could not be adduced. What my hon. Friend suggests is that a certain duty can be carried out by the Governor-General, but that it would be embarrassing to him. "Therefore," he says, "let us transfer it to a tribunal which from its very nature will be incapable of carrying out the duty at all." The experience of every nation shows a tribunal of that kind to be utterly useless for that purpose. Lancashire, I feel sure, has to choose between, on the one hand, a process of litigation in India in which it will be almost impossible for them to prove their case under any sort of rules of law and on the other hand a procedure by which they rely upon the commonsense of the direct representative of the Secretary of State acting in his discretion. Of course, the exercise of that common
sense and discretion by the Governor-General will be embarrassing. The process of governing in all countries is always embarrassing. No one sitting on that Front Bench ever spends an hour in which he is not embarrassed. That is the business of governing. I would earnestly represent to my hon. Friends that while they are seeking, as I have sought for two long years, more effective safeguards, what they have hit upon here is not a more effective safeguard than the one which the Joint Select Committee has proposed. It destroys absolutely any safeguard which exists in the Joint Select Committee's Report and it would land Lancashire into hopeless litigation.

4.34 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I do not propose to follow my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) in his general attack on tariff boards, but representing as I do a Lancashire constituency in which a great deal of manufacturing used to take place and in which far less manufacturing takes place at the present time, I want to say a few words about the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary yesterday. I admit that I was very disappointed in that speech. As a result of the words which my hon. Friend used at the commencement of that speech, I thought at first that something was going to be done by the Government. My hon. Friend said:
The Government have naturally looked into this Clause with great interest and with as much sympathy as possible, but the more we examine it the more difficult we find it of acceptance as it stands on the Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1935; col. 162, Vol. 301.]
I would ask my hon. Friend exactly what he means by those words and especially the words "as it stands on the Paper"? Does he mean that he agrees with the principle of the new Clause or that he turns it down altogether. When I heard those remarks I thought that my hon. Friend was going to announce that something would be done. I did not think that he was merely going to ride off on that statement and do nothing at all. He went on to complain about certain things in the Clause. I admit that I do not agree with the proposed new Clause in toto. I think a great deal of it is wrong and my hon. Friend pointed out various respects in which he disagreed with the Clause. He said for instance that whereas at present the Tariff Board
in India was appointed by the Governor-General, the proposed future Tariff Board under this proposal was to be "subordinate in the Secretary of State" and he disagreed with that proposal. I am sure that my hon. Friends who have put down this new Clause would not mind leaving out that part of it in which it is provided that the board should be subordinate to the Secretary of State.

Sir H. CROFT: In regard to the word "subordinate" I think it was used in debate but perhaps it was not clearly understood. All that is provided is that the Secretary of State is to sanction the names of the members of the board.

Sir W. BRASS: The word "subordinate" was used by the Under-Secretary and is not in the Clause itself. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that, in effect, under the Clause the Board would be subordinate because the Governor-General has to consult the Secretary of State on the appointment of the Board. I agree, too, that what we want in Lancashire is good will with India. But we want a square deal, and we feel that there should be some kind of body in the future of the nature proposed here. The Under-Secretary last night referred a great deal to the past and to what had happened or is happening under the present regime. He said that there had been a gradual improvement in trade, and I agree that there has been, but we are not talking about what has happened in the past, or what is happening at the present time, but what is going to happen in the future under the measure which we are now considering. Whatever my hon. Friend may say about a gradual increase in trade—and it is a very small increase—that has nothing to do with the question of what is to happen after this legislation becomes operative.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary pointed out that there is a board at the present time. We want to know whether there is going to be a board in the future and, if so, by whom is it to be appointed. That is a very pertinent question. My hon. Friend tells us that things are better now than they were previously but we do not know what is going to happen under the new Federation. I think we ought to have a little more explanation from my hon. Friend as to what was in his mind when he said that
he could not accept the Clause as it stood on the Paper. Later on he said that the Board as proposed in the new Clause was unsatisfactory. The proposed Board may be unsatisfactory to my hon. Friend and possibly to a large number of other hon. Members, but we ought to be told whether there is going to be a board under the new system and whether we are going to get a square deal in this respect in India. The majority of Lancashire members have supported the Government all the way through on this Bill. We are simply trying to find out whether the trade of Lancashire is going to be safeguarded or not under the new condition and perhaps the Attorney-General or whoever replies on behalf of the Government will give us some information on that matter.
Then, again, how is the Governor-General to know whether a duty is discriminatory or not. Clause 12 which deals with the Governor-General's special responsibilities, includes among those responsibilities the prevention of discriminatory or penal treatment directed against goods of United Kingdom origin imported into India. How is the Governor-General to discharge that responsibility? Take, for example, what has happened in the past. When I was first Member for the Clitheroe Division the import duty on cotton goods going into India was 3 per cent. and there was a countervailing Excise duty of 3 per cent. also. That import duty on cotton goods has gradually risen from 3 per cent. to 25 per cent. and that import duty of 25 per cent. has had a great effect in reducing the export from Lancashire to India. I am not suggesting that has done all this. I agree that a great deal of it is due to poverty, to low prices, to low standards of living in India. I agree that it is also due, to some extent, to machinery having been imported into India and to the increase in the manufacturing trade in India itself. But it is not only due to those causes. It is due also, to a certain extent—and a big extent—to the increase in the import duty in India against goods from this country.
The Governor-General, as I say, among his special duties has that of stopping anything which he considers penal treatment against this country. Suppose that there is a gradual increase in import
duties over a period of years. Suppose that after this legislation comes into effect there is an increase of 2 per cent. one year, 3 per cent. the next year, then 5 per cent. and so on. Where is the Governor-General going to draw the line and say that a particular increase of duty amounts to penal treatment against goods from this country? How is he to find out about all these matters? I suggest that there must be some board or other body in India to advise him and to help him in arriving at a decision in a case where duty is being increased by stages in the way I have described. This is a matter which affects the whole of the Lancashire cotton trade. Lancashire Members who have supported the Government on this Bill and who believe that good will is the secret of the whole thing, want to be satisfied that the interests of Lancashire are going to be safeguarded and that Lancashire is going to get a fair deal under the new arrangements. We want to know that there will be some sort of board or advisory committee in order to see that the trade of Lancashire is properly looked after in future.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: None of us can complain that Members representing Lancashire have taken so lively an interest in this matter, but while we concede that readily, we are entitled perhaps to say that we are not assured that the way in which they seek to safeguard Lancashire's interests is the best way. Most of the speakers so far have reiterated that they are in favour of a fair deal for Lancashire and a fair deal for India, but in the course of the discussion very little has been said with regard to the second part of that theory, namely, the fair deal for India. Hon. Members opposite are exceedingly anxious to safeguard the future of Lancashire trade with India—that is their fundamental basis—but I ask, To safeguard it against what? It may be against one of two things or perhaps both. First of all, it may be a desire to safeguard Lancashire trade against what is called a boycott. I submit that, however much they may desire to do that, a Tariff Board will be utterly futile for the purpose. You may be able to deal with a boycott by other legislation; you may be able to make a boycott illegal and to impose penalties upon those who
practise it, but a Tariff Board certainly can do nothing to deal with a boycott. In the long run, I am surely right in saying, if a people are determined not to buy your goods and have an obsession about it, nothing that you can do, either by legislation or otherwise, can compel them to buy the goods.
The other possible safeguard is an effective safeguard against unfair discrimination, and it is that which is our main concern to-day. In order to achieve an effective safeguard against unfair discrimination, as I understand it, a Tariff Board is suggested, and among the arguments advanced in its favour is this, that if you have a Tariff Board, you will remove the subject entirely from party politics. Well, we have seen a tariff advisory committee appointed in this country, and I am not prepared to say that I am convinced that we have not seen in actual operation, through the medium of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, the triumph of a party policy which has been advocated in this country for 30 years. It has been done, I know, upon the Advisory Committee recommending it to the Government, but in the long run it is nothing other than the triumph of a party policy; and if you have this kind of thing in India, and unless your Tariff Board is fairly constituted, you may force this thing right into the centre of party politics rather than take it out of politics.
It all depends, I submit, on the personnel of the Tariff Board. What guidance do hon. Members opposite give us in the proposed new Clauses as to their idea of the personnel of this Tariff Board? There is no guidance at all, beyond this, that there are to be a chairman and from two to five members. That is all we are told. Clearly there must be a majority either of Indians or of Englishmen on this board. If hon. Members opposite urge a majority of Indians, will that suit Lancashire? Will that guarantee Lancashire against unfair discrimination? Surely the danger of unfair discrimination will be present just as much when you have a majority of Indians on the Tariff Board as is the case now. Turn it the other way round and suppose that the majority is a majority of English people on the board. Will Indians be satisfies with that? Can you expect them to be satisfied? Ought they to be satisfied? Surely, if anyone
has a right to a determining voice as to the fiscal policy of India, it is the Indian people.
We here assert that we have the right to impose barriers against what we regard as unfair trading conditions. How should we like to have the tariff advisory committee in this country constituted of a majority of Indian people Hon. Members opposite really must begin to be fair. If they are entertaining the thought that the Governor-General, in the exercise of his discretion, is to put on this Tariff Board a majority of Englishmen, representing English business interests, so as to safeguard Lancashire against unfair discrimination, I can assure them that they are going to put the poor future Indian officials in a most unfortunate position. Moreover, it is an indefensible proposition. You have no right to ask that there should be a majority on the Tariff Board in India of our people as compared with Indians.

Mr. BAILEY: The hon. Member has raised the question of the personnel of the Tariff Board. Actually it is a matter of indifference to me whether it is a majority of Indians or of English. I cannot believe that there will not be sufficient people of both races, whether Indians or English, to be impartial, but if there are not sufficient Indians to deal impartially, that justifies the criticism which has been made of this Bill all along. If there are not to be found five Indians who can honestly be said to be fair in this matter, it shows that our criticism is justified. Again, I suggested that there should be an appeal from the board to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and knows how expeditious is the procedure of the Privy Council and how appropriate a proposal of that kind would be for a business transaction. I started with the presumption that hon. Members opposite are anxious to safeguard themselves against unfair discrimination against British trade. That unfair discrimination could only arise from a desire on the part of Indian traders to take an unfair advantage of British traders. How could your Tariff Board be a fair representative of trade at all unless it had upon it Indian traders and English traders? If you have a majority of those speaking for Indian
trade, there is, if I am to accept the theory of hon. Members opposite no safeguard against unfair discrimination against British trade. If, on the other hand, you have a majority representing British trade, the argument is in the opposite direction. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that there is no machinery really which you can devise to deal with a spirit that animates a people—none whatsoever. If, in the long run, they are determined to get the better of you in a business sense, they will get it, whether you have a tariff board or not. In any case I am convinced that a tariff board machine is not the way to deal with this question.
The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State made an admirable speech last night, if I may say so, on this subject. I do not agree with all his arguments, but I thought his statement of the case was complete. He invited hon. Members opposite to face the real problem with which we are confronted in this matter. What is that problem? On the one side we have a decrease of British trade as compared with pre-war times, although of recent years it has increased. The Under-Secretary of State last night directed our attention to two opposing or, rather, two countervailing facts as distinct from that. One is a very substantial increase in India's own production, and that is a very important point. Is there an hon. or a right hon. Gentleman here who, would care to assume authority for saying that he wants to prevent an increase of India's own production? No, I am quite sure.

Mr. BAILEY: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again, and I would not have done so had he not challenged us. No one in this Committee would deny the right of the Indians to develop the cotton industry so far as they can for the Indian people, but we say that it is totally wrong that the Indian cotton industry should develop not only to the detriment of Lancashire but to the detriment of the Indian agricultural workers as well.

Mr. JONES: The claims of the agricultural workers of India compared with those of the city workers of India is a matter for the Indian people to determine,
not for Lancashire people. And, incidentally, I do not see why the hon. Member should claim the right to speak for Lancashire every time. There are others. There is a very substantial increase in India's own production, and I am sure that every well-wisher of India must rejoice in that fact. Surely they must.

Mr. REMER: Can the hon. Member say, comparing the wages paid to Indian workers with the wages paid to Lancashire workers, why the Bombay mill-owner wants 25 per cent. protection against Lancashire?

Mr. JONES: That is not the point at the moment. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for India, in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that there should be an increased production of cotton goods in India? What is the answer? There is no answer, apparently. I should assume that every well-wisher of India must say that in the interests of India herself she should be able to increase her productivity of goods, whatever they may be.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Does the hon. Member make no proviso about labour conditions?

Mr. JONES: I make my own proviso, certainly, about labour conditions in India and elsewhere, and I want India to co-operate with other nations, through the medium of the International Labour Office, for raising labour conditions everywhere, as well as I would urge the creation of trade union conditions in India itself. That is a side issue. The point is that we ought to rejoice at this increase of Indian productivity. A Member of the Government now asks me why.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I did not speak. I think it was an hon. Member sitting behind me.

Mr. JONES: There seems to be some ventriloquist about. I apologise to the right hon. Member. I should say it is a good thing for any country that its productivity should increase and that this applies to India as well as to other countries. Let us take side by side with that the other point which the hon. Gentleman made which is often overlooked—the terrific increase in Japanese
competition in India. The Under-Secretary said:
If my hon. and gallant Friend is an economist, he will perhaps pay some attention to those vital economic reasons which have resulted in the unfortunate diminution of our exports to India. Japanese trade, as I was saying, increased from 9,000,000 square yards in 1914 to 349,000,000 in 1934."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April 1935; col. 171, Vol. 301.]
That is a colossal increase. I am stating a fact.

Sir W. BRASS: Do you agree with the principle of it?

Mr. JONES: If the Indian people want to place an embargo upon foreign goods, that is their affair; it is not mine, but I do say that it is not for us to lay down the law, not merely temporarily but in a Constitution Act, that such and such shall be the law until Parliament in its wisdom changes the Constitution. May I put a third point? Let us also remember another important fact which the Under-Secretary mentioned to us last night—the amount of machinery which has been introduced into India since 1914. I presume that for practical purposes we can neglect the war years between 1914 and 1918, because I do not suppose there was very much exported in that time. Therefore, it means that in some sixteen to eighteen years there has been exported into India £140,000,000 worth of machinery. It is a terrific amount.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: All cotton machinery?

Mr. JONES: No. The phrase actually used was this:
Is this to be wondered at when it is remembered that since 1914 we have exported £140,000,000 worth of machinery to India of which this production is the direct result"—
this production being square yards of cotton. That is a tremendously significant fact. In addition to these three factors of the increase in Indian production, the increase in Japanese competition and the increase in India's imports of machinery, there is a fourth factor to which the Under-Secretary referred last night, and which I will quote to the Committee. He said:
Another fact which I think is of importance in considering the diminution of British imports to India is the impoverishment of the Indian peasant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1935; col. 171, Vol. 301.]
There is the last and most potent factor in the whole of this situation. Hon. Members may talk as much as they will about a tariff board and tariff arrangements and foreign competition with ourselves in India, but in the long run there is nothing that we can do more effectively to improve India's trade with Lancashire than to raise the purchasing power of the Indian people themselves. We on this side of the House are sure that this Tariff Board proposal is not going to be effective. It is not going to find a way for saving Lancashire's trade with India. There is only one way to do that and that is to cease this agitation—I can call it nothing short of that—which perpetually creates a feeling of embitterment and antagonism between the Indian people and ourselves. In the long run the best medium for the creation of trade is good will; and I am sure that this Government could win the good will of the Indian people more speedily by taking them whole-heartedly with them along the road of self-government than by any other method.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. RADFORD: I was disappointed and surprised to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) say that if a majority of the members of this proposed Tariff Board were Indian gentlemen there would be no hope of fair recommendations by that Board in the direction which hon. Members who have been advocating the Board hoped for. I will put the thing the other way round and say without hesitation that I am perfectly convinced that there are Indian gentlemen of character and honour whom I would not fear to see serving on a tariff board in this country. As is seen in the wording of this proposed new Clause, there is no suggestion that Europeans should constitute the Board. There is no suggestion at all as to how the body should be constituted. It is perfectly clear that the Governor-General would have available as members to be chosen by him both Europeans and Indians who could be relied upon both for their ability and fairness of judgment. I would like to reinforce the request of the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) that the Minister who replies should state whether there will be a tariff board in the future when this Bill becomes law, and, if so, what its composition
will be; because that will be a guide to some of us who do not quite know how we shall act when the time comes for the Division. My Noble Friend the hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) referred to the Indian cotton trade as being in its infancy. It is such a lusty infancy that the Indian cotton trade consumes as much raw cotton at the present time as does the cotton trade of this country. We are supposed to be the fathers and mothers of the world's cotton manufacture—and India consumes as much raw cotton as we do. There is not so much of the infant about the Indian cotton industry.
How has this Indian cotton industry grown to such dimensions? How conies it that its productivity has grown to such a terrific extent during the years since the War? The reason for it has been the tremendous import duties put on against what were the chief suppliers of the Indian market—the Lancashire mills. There is no room for argument about that. At the time of the recognition of the Fiscal Autonomy Convention as the basis of our trade with India in 1921 there was a 7½ per cent. import duty on cotton goods sent into India; but there was also a 3½ per cent. countervailing Excise Duty, which meant that there was a difference of 4 per cent. which our people had to pay to get their goods into India. Since then the duty has gone steadily up. I will not weary the Committee by giving the figures of each individual advance, but the figure has been quoted several times to-day as being now 25 per cent., with no countervailing Excise Duty. But this is a complete understatement of the position. The 25 per cent. import duty is, and for some time has been, a minimum duty on British cotton goods going into India. In substitution for that 25 per cent. ad valorem duty, in the case of the cheaper cloths which used to constitute a tremendous proportion of the cloth which Lancashire sent to India, there is a duty based on weight. It is what is called a specific duty of 4⅜ annas per pound weight.
To give the Committee some idea of how that works out, I will give one example. Let us take a grey shirting, 38 inches wide and 38 yards long, weighing 10 lbs., and worth 11s. in Manchester to-day. The manufacturer of this shirting will sell it in Manchester for 11s.; and anyone who has noted the trading
results of Lancashire manufacturers—particularly those making this kind of cloth in recent years—will know that this cloth will probably show the manufacturer a loss at the price of 11s. This piece of cloth, costing 11s. in Manchester, because it weighs 10 lbs. will have to pay a duty in India of 4s. 1d., which works out at a duty of 37 per cent. ad valorem and not 25 per cent. The result has been that this specific duty which amounts to 37 per cent. ad valorem has practically killed that cheaper class of trade with India.
What has been the result? There has been some reference to the machinery which is going to India. The reason for it going there is that with the help of these terrific import duties it was worth the while of wealthy Indians to erect mills and equip them with machinery. With this high tariff wall behind them they could work away for increased productivity, with the result that their productivity last year amounted to between four and five thousand million yards of cotton cloth—and the most that Britain' ever sent into India in pre-war days was in the neighbourhood of 3,000,000,000 yards. Their productivity is infinitely greater than the total imports from this country or from Japan. The rise in Japanese imports referred to by the Under-Secretary and by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, from 9,000,000 yards to 349,000,000 yards, is trivial compared to the increase in India's own production. India's own production has risen from 2,156,000,000 yards 20 years ago to 4,257,000,000 yards last year. Therefore, the increase of some 300,000,000 yards in Japanese imports is a flea-bite compared with India's own production.
Has this been for the good of the Indian people? It has been for the good of the wealthy millowners and possibly for some two or three hundred thousand operatives whom they employ—although things may not be so good for the operatives. Hon. Members opposite will be as well informed as I am as to whether the rates of pay and other conditions in the Indian mills are such as please them. At any rate, this increased production has been a tremendous benefit to the Indian mill-owners and possibly to these two or three hundred thousand operatives; but the people who have paid for it have been the
300,000,000 poor peasants of India who have had to buy at higher prices cotton goods of a quality not as good as they used to get from Lancashire. I wish that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) was in his place, and I wish that some of my hon. Friends from Lancashire had told him the truth when he spoke last night and rather sneered at us for advocating tariffs on foreign manufactured goods coming into our own country as being for the good of our people while saying that we did not consider tariffs were for the good of the Indian people. There is no analogy at all between the conditions in this country and in India. We are an industrial people and four-fifths of our population have to work in industry, whereas in India there are merely a few hundred thousand in industry, and they are benefited while 350,000,000 are having to bear the cost of dearer goods. I hope that the Government will give us information with regard to the position of the Tariff Board in the future and their view on the suggestion that there should at least be most-favoured-nation treatment for this country.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. STONES: It is not very often that I trouble the Committee with a speech. I remember the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) saying that it was impossible for him to find sufficiently classical language to deal with his friends below him. I am sure that he will not have much difficulty in understanding what I, as a Lancashire Member, say. It will be in the pure Lancashire fashion, straight and quite plain. For the first time I find myself in agreement with those who have been opposed to this Bill. I have religiously voted for the Government throughout, but on this occasion I feel that, unless some concession is made, I shall have to go into the. Lobby against them. I regret that the Government have been unable to make any concession. I was sent here to support the National Government, and I have faithfully carried out my promise to my constituents, but I feel bound today to support the principle of the proposed Clause. I do so because I come from a constituency which during the last four or five years has seen 14 mills closed down as a result of this very competition. I have been told many times during the last few weeks that I ought to support
a clause such as this one. The Government have agreed that discrimination is wrong. Clause 12 makes it the duty of the Governor-General to prevent discrimination, but surely it would be more reasonable, if the Government were really in earnest, to agree to the setting up of a tribunal to go into the facts when complaint arises. I do not say that this new Clause is perfect, but it is a step in the right direction and can be perfected later on. It represents a principle for which there is widespread support in Lancashire, and I earnestly beg the Government to make some concession in the matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) when he said last night:
We are only asking that there shall not be penal discrimination against us from political motives. Is that exploiting the workers of India? Is it not getting very near to hypocrisy to use such language when we merely ask that the country which has done so much for India should not in future be exploited by penal duties having no relation to the fiscal or revenue interests of India?"—[OFFICAL REPORT, 29th April; col, 173, Vol. 301.]
In a word, all we want is that the Indian politician shall not be allowed to penalise British trade merely for political purposes. I agree in the main with the proposed Clause, and I feel that it would not be in the interests of my constituency if I did not support it by going into the Lobby.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: I listened carefully to the reply which the Under-Secretary gave last night at the close of the first part of this Debate, and I was disappointed with what he said, although I should like to pay a tribute to him for the careful way in which he dealt with the various points which were raised, chiefly by Lancashire Members. There have been times in the last three years when Members who represent Lancashire divisions have thought that those who have replied on behalf of the Government have dealt in a somewhat perfunctory manner with the points that have been put forward. They have not been occasioned, however, when the question of India has been before the House. Last night we were pleased that the points were dealt with so carefully. Nearly all the Lancashire Members have supported this Bill throughout its long passage, and they will continue to support it. Some of us have been here, day
in and day out, have trooped through the Division Lobbies defeating Amendment after Amendment, and have done all that we could to support the Government in the passage of this Bill. I have done that, not because I am in love with the Bill, but because I realise its importance. I realise, after all that bas gone before, that the only possible course to pursue now is to give India some measure of self-government. That is the only way which will benefit Lancashire trade. To deny India this at this late hour would be very much worse for Lancashire trade than anything which could happen under this Bill. There is no doubt in our mind that we are doing the best for the cotton trade by supporting this Bill.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) raised one or two points. I did not propose to deal with the Import Duties Advisory Committee as set up in this country, but the hon. Member brought the question before the Committee, and I will, therefore, say a word about it. He said that the Advisory Committee follows party politics in this country. I think that he is wrong, and I have never before heard it suggested seriously. That Committee is the most impartial body that has ever been set up to deal with anything.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: What I said was that the Committee's recommendations were a triumph for the policy of the party opposite.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: That amounts to pretty much the same thing. The Committee was set up primarily for two purposes, namely, to help manufacturers to get more orders for the greater employment of our people, and to ensure, as a corollary, that there should not be victimisation of the people by increased prices. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) hinted yesterday that prices as a whole have not increased. That is proved by the fact that the cost of living to-day is down to 39.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that we are not discussing the Advisory Committee in this country, and though legitimate reference has been made to it, he must not discuss it now.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: I have no intention of doing so, except to reply to a point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly.
I apologise if I have gone out of order in doing so. The hon. Member also said he was not against Indian trade increasing as much as it possibly could. That seems to be a case of the usual Socialist party attitude of every country but one's own. I propose to deal with one or two points that arose out of the speech of the Under-Secretary last, night. We know that politics have played a large part in Indian trade, and there is a danger, although it may not arise at once, that power will go again into the hands of those who will put politics first and enact measures of a penalising character against our trade for political ends. It was well described by the Under-Secretary last night when he said that power might again get into the hands of the wrong section. The question, then, is whether the safeguard provided in the Bill would be sufficient. The Governor-General has power to intervene if penal action is taken against British goods, but would it not be better to ensure at an early stage that that position is never reached? How can the Governor-General intervene in adequate time? Surely it can only be in very exceptional, and therefore obvious, cases where he will intervene. What about the numerous cases of what may be called pinpricks, small increases, small points of discrimination, which are from time to time enacted against this country and which in many cases probably would not be big enough to justify the Governor-General intervening? Will he not hesitate to intervene except in the most glaring circumstances?
Would he not, therefore, be helped if he could have the advice of some impartial body such as the Tariff Board which we are suggesting? It would be an expert body which would give him undoubted strength. We do not lay down any rules as to its exact composition, but it would be a body of experts in trade. At the same time, the members would be completely unbiased. These are two qualifications which must be insisted on. Again, the board would be in close touch with the figures of the trade of both countries, and it would be in a far stronger position to decide whether a tariff was essential to India or grossly unfair to this country. The Under-Secretary has suggested that the present machinery should work well, but it seems
rather top-heavy. The Trade Commissioner has to inform the Board of Trade if penal discrimination is taking place. The Board of Trade has to tell the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State has to tell the Governor-General, who exercises his discretion. I do not think he is in a very enviable position. Is it calculated to foster good will? We have heard a lot about good will during this Debate, and the Government appear to be relying on good will more than anything else in the future relations between this country and India. I think they are apt to rely too much on good will. We have relied on good will in the past, and on many occasions have been badly let down. When the Governor-General suddenly takes this course, it is bound to arouse ill-feeling. He makes a sudden arbitrary decision that some duty has to go and it must be taken off straight away. We cannot say that that will make for friendly relations. The Under-Secretary seemed to be very well satisfied with the present Tariff Board, but would he have been equally satisfied with the arrangements for reviewing tariffs in Canada and Australia before the Ottawa Conference took place? Is it not a fact that provisions were inserted in the various Agreements arising from that Conference in order to improve the methods adopted by the tariff advisory bodies in the Dominions?
Another point made was that delays would be prejudicial to trade. Is not the Budget here, which imposes alterations in duties, subject to delays in its long passage through the House? And is not delay a good thing? There has been too much speed in the putting on of tariffs against this country. Delay would enable public opinion to express itself on both sides. Then there is the question of publicity, which is of great importance in influencing public opinion. It is the lack of publicity in the past which has enabled these duties to be put on hastily, and that has reacted against this country. Publicity would be an excellent thing. In conclusion, I would urge the Government to consider this matter again before the Report stage. There will be plenty of time before the Report stage. We do not ask that the exact wording of this new Clause should be adopted but we do ask that the principle of it should be considered once again to see whether it is not possible to do something on the
lines proposed, or something akin to what is suggested, because we take a serious view of the position. There is nothing startling in this proposal. We ask only for fair and impartial consideration, and we think such a Clause would be one more brick in the big edifice which we are gradually building up for India. I hope the Government will give the matter further consideration, and will be able to do something on the lines I have suggested, so that English trade may receive a fairer deal than it has had in the past.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I might remind those who have been criticising the details of this Clause that the Question put from the Chair is, "That the Clause be read a Second time," and that if they desire to see a Tariff Board set up it will be open to them, after the Clause has been read a Second time, to put down Amendments to it. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) spoke for some little time, and with great eloquence and ability, but his speech was destructive of the idea of tariff boards anywhere in the world, and not once did he put forward a constructive suggestion which would be helpful to the distressed trade of Lancashire. We have heard a lot about the paltry increase of 100,000,000 yards in Lancashire's trade during last year. In 1913 Lancashire sent to India 3,000,000,000 yards of cotton cloth, and that has now fallen to a paltry 300,000,000 yards. Lancashire has received a very raw deal. It may be asked why I, who represent a constituency in Cheshire, am speaking on behalf of Lancashire. I reckon that there is more cotton cloth printed and dyed in my constituency than in any other constituency in the United Kingdom. It is the home of the printing and dyeing trades, because they go there for the necessary raw material, the raw material of water, pure water for the purpose. As one who knows the distressing circumstances of those villages, where they have suffered serious unemployment, I am angry when the Noble Lord comes here to speak without having one constructive suggestion to put forward to help those people to regain prosperity.
We are not speaking here solely in the interests of Lancashire and Cheshire people. We are speaking as much in the interests of the agricultural workers in India. After all, Lancashire has not a great deal to complain about. If
Lancashire had listened to Joseph Chamberlain 30 years ago Lancashire might have had a different story to tell to-day; but it is very unfair that the cotton weavers and spinners of Lancashire should be punished because the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and other Free Trade bodies happened to give the Government of the day and the people of this country very bad advice, just as they are giving very bad advice to the present Government. One thing which I can never understand is why successive Governments, when they want to know anything about the cotton industry, persist in going to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, a body composed almost entirely of merchants whose sole object is to buy their goods in the cheapest market, and who will readily go to Japan or any other place to buy cheap goods, made by underpaid labour, if it will enable them to make profits. If there was one thing in the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) last night with which I agreed it was his reference to capitalists of that type, of the purely merchant class, who are actuated solely by the idea of gaining a small merchanting profit and have no interest in the employment of their own people.
For too long the Bombay millowners have dictated to the Indian Government what the policy of this country should be. Their object has been throughout to exploit the industrial workers of that country and charge the agricultural workers a high price for very bad cloth. The Government of India would have been well advised to see that the tariff, which has been raised to the high rate of 25 per cent., was reduced to a much lower level. I believe that it is through the operation of a Tariff Board such as is suggested that we can see some real hope of advantage for the English cotton industry. Just before the Ottawa Conference it was my privilege to meet a gentleman who was the Mohammedan representative at the Ottawa Conference, and I spoke to him about my views, which are well known, on Imperial Preference. He said to me, "Which goods have the most Empire content? Is it Lancashire cotton goods, which are woven out of American cotton, or Japanese goods, which are woven out of Indian cotton?" Since that date Sir William Clare Lees and the hon. Member for
Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) have been to India and have undoubtedly increased very largely the use of Indian cotton in Lancashire, and I believe that is a movement which will continue to grow. The great county of Lancashire has been long-suffering for too long. Seldom does one hear the views of Lancashire spoken with such a unanimous voice as to-day, and I only hope those who have voiced her claim will be found in the Division Lobby with me in support of this Clause. Only by some proposal of this kind can we really secure that attention shall be paid to the cotton industry of the county of Lancashire.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I rise for only two minutes to deal with a point made by the Under-Secretary for India in his speech last night. He made particular reference to the admission of the Movers of the Clause that the adoption of the recommendations of the Tariff Advisory Board which it is proposed to set up by the Clause would not be obligatory on the Indian Government, and therefore that it would not provide a safeguard for the trade of Lancashire or any other trades in this country. I submit that that is not an argument which will carry conviction to the Committee. The Tariff Advisory Board would be of such a character that its impartiality would be recognised by all parties. If they made a recommendation which, of course, would not be published, that would provide a very effective safeguard against duties being levied contrary to agreements which had been entered into between this country and India, or not levied in accordance with what they have now agreed to be the principle upon which these duties are to be levied, that is, to equate conditions in the home market reasonably to conditions prevailing in this country.
If this impartial Tariff Advisory Board were set up, the recommendations it made would provide a very effective safeguard. In the circumstances I cannot see why it is not possible for the Government to accept the proposed new Clause, or at any rate something on the lines of it. Nobody can say that to ensure that questions of this sort should be dealt with by a body which is admittedly impartial is unfair to India, or in any way derogates
from the self-government which is given to India by this Bill. It may be said that it is derogating from the sovereignty of the government given to India that this Advisory Board should be set up by any other Government than the Government of India, but in the Bill there is provision after provision putting in safeguards for the preliminary stage, before we are quite sure that India will be worthy of the self-government which is to be established in that country. It is not unreasonable also to put in that the investigation of these very vital matters should be in the hands of a body of an impartial character set up by the Governor-General in consultation with the Secretary of State, who has so many other powers which are regarded as safeguards. In the circumstances, I once more press upon the Government to give an indication to Lancashire that the principles embodied in the proposed new Clause will be carried out either by the acceptance of the proposed new Clause or by the presentation of some other Clause upon the Report stage.

5.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: As a Lancashire Member and one who has traded in cotton with India for the last 30 years, I felt it was impossible for me to sit still without entering a word of protest at what appears to be the reluctance of the Government to do anything to safeguard the Lancashire cotton trade. Thirty years ago we had practically the whole cotton trade of India. I remember the tariff going on, and it gradually rising from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. and then to 7½ per cent. and 11 per cent. There was a great outcry in Lancashire at that time, but it was nothing to the outcry in Lancashire at the present time. Indian tariffs have practically cleared the Lancashire cotton trade out of India. We talk about a few hundreds of thousands of yards of cotton material; they are a mere drop in the ocean to Lancashire. The Under-Secretary of State told us that we must rely on the good will of India. I agree that good will is necessary between any two countries, but we have tried to rely on the good will and the sympathy of India for the last 50 years, and, instead of Lancashire being able to live upon that good will and sympathy, she has been starved out of existence.
I remember the Debate which took place here, when the President of the
Board of Trade, answering me, said, "Look at what the trade negotiations have done. India has promised a reduction of five per cent." I said then that Lancashire would never see that five per cent. because India had only promised it if and when her finances would allow. There has been another Budget, which was not a bad budget for India. Have we had a reduction of five per cent.? Nothing of the sort. We shall never see that reduction. The hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) has told the House that this is the best Bill for the cotton trade of Lancashire, and that Lancashire has recognised that that is so. I should be very sorry for him if he went down to Royton and made that speech to the cotton operatives, because he would get the biggest shock that he has ever had in his life. Lancashire recognises that with the passing of the Bill the last hope of restoring their cotton trade in India will have gone once and for all. India has been the mainstay of the cotton trade of Lancashire, and her millowners and operatives have not been out to do any injustice to or to impoverish the Indian people.
Years ago we were supplying cloth to the Indian natives cheaper than the Indian mills are supplying it to them to-day. Who started those mills? They were people from this country. They have made their pile of money without any regard for the huge mass of peasants in India, in order that they might draw money from those peasants and enrich themselves. That is how the cotton industry started in India and how it is going on to-day, and it is those very millowners who are at the back of this agitation to see the Bill put into operation. I beseech the Government to make this gesture to Lancashire. Even if the Government cannot accept the proposed new Clause as it stands, I ask them to show that they are willing to do something, even at this late hour, for the operatives who have been walking the streets in Lancashire for from four to six years. If the Government cannot see their way to do something, I shall be anxious to see how many of my fellow Members from Lancashire go into the Lobby against the Government.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: The Committee have heard with very great interest the
expressions of view from a large number of cotton experts and other people who are gravely apprehensive as to the effect in their own constituencies of the proposed constitutional changes. We who have consistently opposed the Bill are grateful for the eleventh hour support received from the representatives of Lancashire, on whose behalf we have waged a rather lone fight for the last few months. I hope that their opposition will be followed by a greater readiness to be apprehensive also of any threat to the welfare of the Indian masses that may become apparent at a later stage of the proceedings on the Bill. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) recognised that there is a very deep disquietude among many people when he made reference in particular to the Clause which we are now considering. My Noble Friend's speech was, as always, a delight to the ear as to the mind, but when he sat down I was in extreme doubt as to what constructive suggestion he had made, and as to how he would have dealt with this problem if he had been the arbiter of Indian-Lancashire trade relations.
The only thing which has emerged quite clearly has been the recognition on both sides of the Committee of the need for good will in our future trade relations, but if good will existed on both sides, the chief reason for the erection of some tariff board such as we envisage would disappear. Does good will exist? In this country there is unanimous good will towards the Indian people and whatever mistake we think was made a generation or so ago, none of us would be ready to cancel or abrogate the Indian Fiscal Convention. Does good will exist in India? There is no doubt that good will exists among the great masses of the Indian peasantry. During the boycott period in 1930 and 1931 there was no wholehearted crusading zeal on the part of the masses of the Indian peasantry but good will certainly does not exist on the part of those to whom, by these proposals, we shall transfer almost complete power in India in the coming years. The evidence is accumulating on all sides. The high tariff on textiles has been maintained, despite the dwindling revenues of the past two years. There are those in the Indian Assembly who do not wish to give any preference whatever,
and as little encouragement as possible to British trade.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) in his speech yesterday, drew attention to the Ottawa Agreements, and said that they were very valuable. The Under-Secretary took up the same argument and said that it was on the basis of agreement and on the basis of Ottawa that the trade between India and Great Britain ought to be improved and developed. The impression was subtly conveyed to the Committee that the Ottawa Agreements were welcomed, and that all sections of Indian political opinion gave an affirmative vote to them. I hope that hon. Members realise that the Congress Members who have now been returned in such large numbers were absent altogether from the Legislative Assembly when the Ottawa Agreements were brought up for discussion. That does not prevent them from saying now exactly what they think about the Ottawa Agreements. When we are considering whether we should set up the Tariff Board which we have envisaged, we should read the opinions of responsible Indian statesmen upon the Agreements which were passed in their absence. One of the representatives has said:
This Assembly may have endorsed the Ottawa Agreements, but at that time we were devoid of the services of a section which is the most independent and the most public-spirited.
Sir S. V. Chetty, speaking on behalf of the Madras Indian Chamber of Commerce, said:
The Commercial constituencies have given an unmistakable evidence of the fact that they do not only not endorse the Ottawa Trade Agreement, but are anxious to take the earliest opportunity to terminate it.
Another Member, speaking also on behalf of the Indian commercial element, was even more frank. He said:
The country has given its verdict in unmistakable terms that it does not approve of the Imperial preference by not returning to this House the champion of the Ottawa Agreement"—
Sir Shanmukhan Chetty. Lastly, another speaker who was also putting forward the same point of view said:
If we read Article I of the Agreement we find that the principle and policy of Imperial preference has been accepted in its entirety.
He was referring to the Agreement recently concluded in regard to Lancashire. Then the Member for Commerce and Railways, Sir Joseph Bhore, interrupting him said: "No, not at all." In all quarters of the House during that debate, Imperial preference was regarded as a monstrous, vicious and poisonous principle. They may be right, but I do not agree with them, as I believe that Imperial preference is the best way of encouraging world trade; but it is certainly no good fooling this Committee into the belief that there is, on the part of those people, good will which alone will be adequate to secure a greater measure of trade between Lancashire and India. We have the views of those who spoke with authority in the debate on the Lancashire agreement, which was negatived in the Assembly, the elected members voting almost unanimously against it. We know that there is here no good will. If there had been any good will, one of the main arguments in favour of the Tariff Board would not exist. In the absence of any such indication, and with the knowledge that Lancashire within a generation will probably be ruined and will have to face a far greater increase of unemployment as the result of any mistake for which this Committee may make itself responsible this afternoon, I earnestly ask the Government to give very careful consideration to this proposed new Clause and to try to incorporate it in the Bill.

6.1 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: At this late hour I only want to speak for a very short time, and I only speak because I represent Blackburn, the town that has probably been hardest hit by the loss of Indian trade. When I went to India last January there were unmistakable evidence there of the good that the 25 per cent. duty on Lancashire cotton-piece goods has done to the Indian mills. Only just outside Calcutta I saw one completely new mill being built, and I was told that there were four new mills being built and extensions made at Ahmedabad. There is no doubt that, whatever good Protection has done to this country, Protection in India has done a considerable amount of good to the Indian cotton industry.
I went to Delhi, and while there I had an interview with Mr. Mody, the
chairman of the Bombay Millowners' Association. Before the interview started, I said to him, "I would like to know whether I can refer to this interview in the future." He said, "I have no objection at all," and we started on that understanding, that he could refer to what I said to him and I could refer to what he said to me. I started by saying to him, "You are the villain of the piece; you are the man who is responsible for closing down 70 mills in Blackburn and putting about 20,000 cotton operatives in my constituency out of work." "Well," he said, "what I am thinking about are not the millowners in Blackburn, and not the cotton operatives in Blackburn, but the millowners in Bombay and the cotton operatives in Bombay"; and I think that that was quite a fair statement. At any rate, however, in this Committee at the present moment we are trying to think about the cotton operatives in Lancashire. There are other things, of course, besides piece goods to be considered—things like motor cars, textile machinery, and locomotives for the Indian railways; but all these things are small, for the reason that India cannot make them at present. When, during the last century, machinery was introduced in Lancashire, Lancashire broke the hand-loom cotton industry in India into little bits, and this 25 per cent. import duty has now broken, or is breaking, the Lancashire weaving industry into little bits in revenge.

Sir H. CROFT: Would my hon. and gallant Friend regard that duty of 25 per cent. as a penal duty?

Sir W. SMILES: Certainly I regard it as a penal duty, and I do not think that any mill in Lancashire will have a chance as long as a 25 per cent. duty is imposed. I should be very sorry to see a tariff board, appointed at a time when a 25 per cent. duty had been in force for two or three years, start with that as being a fair duty. I consider that it is a most unfair duty, and I do not think that Lancashire will really have a chance of competing properly until it is reduced to 12½ per cent. or 15 per cent. With a duty of 12½ per cent. I think they could compete. For that reason, and to save future Governors-General of India more responsibility—of which, goodness knows,
they will have enough—I hope that the Government will consider this proposal to set up an impartial tariff board to consider whether some of these duties against goods imported from the United Kingdom are penal or not.

6.6 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): We have had a prolonged but, I think, a useful debate, if only because of the prominence which has been given to a question which undoubtedly affects a great county and a great industry. I am certainly not going to complain of any Lancashire Member who deems it to be, not merely his interest, but his duty to represent the views and fears which he or his constituents may entertain. I observe that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) rather gleefully welcomed the Lancashire Members as recruits to the little army that has been opposing this Bill. I am very glad to see that the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) is aware of the net that has been spread for him. I was a little sorry to hear the somewhat rasping tone, if he will forgive me for saying so, of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) when he complained that the Government had done nothing at all to safeguard or protect Lancashire interests—

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I did not mean that at all. I only asked the Government to make a gesture to Lancashire.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite accept that from my hon. and gallant Friend. I now see that what he intended the Committee to understand, was that he wanted something more than what the Government have already done, and he was not complaining that the Government had done nothing. There is, of course, a substantial difference between the two points of view. I am especially glad to note my hon. and gallant Friend's recognition of what the Government have sought to do in relation to the protection of Lancashire interests. I think I am justified in saying that the first of the four new Clauses upon which the debate has been proceeding has been practically abandoned by its sponsors. Member after Member who has spoken in support of the proposal
that something should be done by tike Government has been at pains to say that he does not feel able to support the Clause as it stands, and that he can understand that the Government could not possibly accept the proposal as it stands on the Order Paper.

Sir H. CROFT: I hope the Attorney-General will allow me to say, on behalf of my friends, that, unless the Government can produce a better Clause, we shall most certainly support this Clause in the Lobby.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite understand that. I am not sufficiently optimistic to think that I can persuade my hon. and gallant Friend to vote for the Government on this question, but I am hopeful enough to believe that some of my other hon. Friends will, upon a review of the whole position, be willing to take a different course from him. I was not suggesting for a moment that my hon. and gallant Friend has promised to support the Government. What I was saying was that Member after Member who has spoken in favour of the policy of doing something has said that he could not pretend that the first of the four proposed new Clauses could be accepted by the Government in substance or in form. It has been put forward merely as a sort of idea, which it was hoped, I think, would germinate in the Government's mind and produce something a little better or more satisfactory than the Clause in question. I think I have fairly represented the tone of the speeches that have been made in favour of the first of these four proposed new Clauses. I am bound to say that, when one looks at the new Clause, lengthy as it is, the gist of it is really contained in half-a-dozen words. Those half-dozen words are the words which require that the Tariff Board shall be appointed by the Governor-General in his discretion
after consultation with the Secretary of State.
That is the gist of the Clause. Do not let the Committee be under any misapprehension. This is not a question of having a tariff board to advise the Federation. I am not sure that I am so enamoured of tariff boards as a means of reducing tariffs as some hon. Members appear to be. That is, perhaps, a concession
to hon. Members who belong to the Opposition. Those who have had some experience of tariff boards in other countries may perhaps be of opinion that they are excellent vehicles for increasing tariffs, but they are a little dilatory in action in reducing them; and inasmuch as the expectation of those who have sponsored this first Clause is that the tariff board which they propose is going to reduce tariffs, I have listened with some interest to hear whether or not there is any experience to justify the placing of confidence in a board of this character. Let us bear in mind that, as has been said more than once in the Debate, there is at the present time a Tariff Board. But the distinction between the Tariff Board that exists and the tariff board proposed is that it is suggested that the new board will be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State, and therefore will be more mindful of British interests than th existing Board, or than one merely appointed by the Governor-General or by the Government of India.
Let me say at once that, if anybody felt able to propose to this Committee a tribunal which would be strictly impartial between the two interests concerned, the Government would be—I will not say more ready to accept the proposal, for, indeed, the Government are ready to accept any proposal that would help Lancashire industry—[Laughter.] Oh, yes. It is all very well for some of my hon. and gallant Friends—for they are all "gallant"—who oppose this Bill to laugh at me for saying that the Government would be very ready and glad to do anything for Lancashire. He would, indeed, be a callous Member of Parliament who could view with equanimity the desolation that has been wrought in a great industry, by causes, let me add, for which this Government is certainly not responsible, nor, so far as I know, other Governments, in part at any rate. But I say, and I claim the support of the main body of the Committee in repeating this, that the Government would be very happy indeed if there were some additional means better than those that have already been attempted for protecting the interests of Lancashire in relation to the Indian trade. Therefore, I say again that, if there were a means of devising an impartial board that would hold the balance equally between
the two interests, that would be an improvement upon the board suggested in this Clause, which, as I have already pointed out, is proposed by my hon. Friends who are sponsoring the Clause for the very reason that it would have to be approved by the Secretary of State, and therefore would contain people who were to regard Lancashire interests primarily in relation to their duties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am trying to be as fair and candid with the Committee and with my hon. Friends as I can.

Sir J. HASLAM: Does the Attorney-General insinuate that the Secretary of State only considers the interests of Lancashire? Surely, the Secretary of State would consider the interests of India and Lancashire.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not insinuate that the Secretary of State would consider only or mainly the interests of Lancashire; but, as I understand it, the proposal to establish this Tariff Board to be approved by the Secretary of State is, as I have already pointed out, attractive to my hon. Friends because the Secretary of State will be—

Sir H. CROFT: Impartial.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No; that is not the attraction to my hon. Friends. However, I make the point as I see it. I regard the attraction of the Clause of my hon. Friends as lying in the idea that the Secretary of State will be a better instrument for looking after the interests of Lancashire than the Governor-General without the consultation with the Secretary of State. I am glad to have my hon. Friend's approval to that way of stating the proposition. The Clause having been practically abandoned in its present form, though not the general proposal, let me say that it has been taken, and my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Clause admitted, and, in fact, stated, almost direct from the Import Duties Act, 1932. In other words—and I say this without offence—it is a piece of "paste and scissors." It has been lifted from an Act which deals with conditions in this country to try to make it apply to conditions which are very different in India. When Parliament establishes a tariff board to consider questions of new tariffs or existing tariffs for the United Kingdom, there is but one interest, and one interest alone,
that should dominate their deliberations—the interest of the people of these islands.

Sir H. CROFT: And the Empire.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: And the Empire, let me add. I think that the expression which I used was, perhaps, more accurate that the only consideration which should dominate their deliberations, though other considerations may enter into their deliberations, is the interest of this country. But when you go to India and try to apply that proposal in so many words to the conditions in India, if one is candid, one is immediately faced with the fact that you now have two conflicting interests. You have the Indian interests, and the Lancashire and the British interests. There is the exact antithesis to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) referred in his conversation with Mr. Mody. My hon. Friend said that he was thinking of Blackburn, and Mr. Mody said, "I am thinking of Bombay," a very natural absorption in the interests of the people with whom these gentlemen were most closely connected. Therefore, it is no good taking a proposal for a tariff board from Great Britain and saying, "It is good for Great Britain, and therefore it is good for India." In relation to Great Britain the tariff board has a comparatively simple task. It has to consider the interests of Great Britain and to make proposals appropriate to those interests, but the tariff board which is proposed will have to consider the conflicting interests of the two great countries, and immediately the question must arise: Is it attempting to make an exact balance between those two interests? I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) would answer "Yes" to that question. It should balance Lancashire interests with Indian interests.

Sir H. CROFT: The Clause does not say so. There is not a word in the Clause to that effect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perhaps confusing the Debate on the further Clause—the Imperial Preference Clause—which is quite a different thing, with the machinery of this Clause. All we are asking here is for an absolutely impartial body in India who will be able to say that the tariffs which are recommended are wise,
and there is nothing in the Clause which says that the board has to consider the interests of Britain. All we want is that it shall be impartial, and a kind of advisory committee. It would be set up de novo without any other consideration.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. and gallant Friend is deceiving himself if he thinks that all that Lancashire wants is an impartial committee. If I may make my point of view clear to my hon. and gallant Friend, the moment a tribunal of this sort is set up to uphold the impartial views which my hon. and gallant Friend proposes, they will be faced with this question: How are we to treat a tariff which might be penal in its effect against the Lancashire interests, but absolutely essential to the proper balancing of the Indian Budget?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They must think of the Indian consumers.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend says that they must think of the Indian consumers, and I quite agree that the Indian consumers will come into the picture. I do not want to dwell too long upon this matter, but I wish to point out that it is much easier to say that this Board is intended to be an impartial one than to point out exactly how, if it regards the interests of India, it is to be impartial in such a way as to confer the hoped-for advantages upon the languishing trade of Lancashire. We have tried, and I think successfully as far as it goes, to put into this Bill proposals which certainly follow, as my noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) pointed out, the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee for preventing penal or discriminatory tariffs from being imposed upon British trade. Let me say with my noble Friend how difficult, and indeed impossible it would be for a legal tribunal to consider that question as has been suggested in more than one quarter. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) suggested that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should, in the ultimate resort, decide a question like that. It is not a question to be decided by a legal tribunal. It is a difficult question at all times to attempt to lay down rules to deal with the position, but the Government have thought that the Governor-General, on the whole, with the
assistance of the different bodies and persons to whom he will have resort, is much the most likely tribunal to decide what is penal or discriminatory as compared with what is purely revenue or protective, and to disallow or to allow it as the case may be.
Questions have been asked as to what assistance the Governor-General will have in deciding these questions. He will have full information through his advisers. He will have the advantage of the help of his own secretarial staff. Upon revenue questions, he will have the skilled advice of his financial adviser. On questions of protective tariffs, he will have the report of the existing Tariff Board which, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), I may say is certainly intended to be continued. He will have, through the channels of the Trade Commissioner and the Secretary of State—channels which most certainly will not be closed to him—the full information that will enable him to do what that much-to-be-desired impartial Board, if it could be devised, was intended to do. One also remembers that in addition to the special responsibility contained in Clause 12, the Governor-General is directed by his Instrument of Instructions to prevent a tariff, the main intention of which is to injure the interests of the Indian Government rather than to further the economic interests of India. He is also to bear in mind the historic partnership which has existed between Great Britain and India. I venture to think that these are safeguards. I will not say that there are ample safeguards, because I am not going to suggest that the most that we can do would solve what is perhaps an insoluble problem, namely, to settle which of these great interests has the preference in our own minds. Of course we think first of Lancashire. [Laughter.] Of course we do. I am making a confession of which I should think that no British subject domiciled in India would complain. We naturally think of our home people first. I think of them first, certainly, and I make a present of it to my hon. and gallant Friend who mocks me when I say it. At the same time, we have undoubtedly, if we are loyal to our duty, to remember that the interests of India are as dear to them as the interests of our own people are dear to us.
I come to a point to which surely we must give full weight. Fifteen or 16 years ago India was given that measure of control in relation to her fiscal arrangements which Lord Curzon described as almost absolute freedom of fiscal policy. My right hon. Friend interposes the word "almost." I understand that that was rightly put in because it was always intended, as the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) pointed out, that in certain circumstances there should be power to prevent full freedom of fiscal policy, that is to say, if some measure agreed upon between the Governor-General and the Legislative Assembly cut across some international system or some Imperial interest. Therefore it could not be a full freedom of fiscal policy, but it was almost an absolute freedom of fiscal policy. Lord Curzon said that its importance could not be exaggerated, and no one has suggested in this Committee that we should go back upon that policy. There have been suggestions made that in the past the policy has not been applied as rigorously or as fairly as it should have been applied, but that is in the past. Nobody has suggested that this grant of almost absolute freedom should be reversed.
What does that entail? It means that the spirit of the policy—not the letter of it—must be conceded as one which is to prevail in relation to the tariff question as affecting Lancashire, and if India be pleased, or thinks it necessary for the purpose of balancing her Budget, having regard to the revenues that are at the disposal of the Central Government or of the Federal Government in the future, to impose certain tariffs of a revenue character, it is surely not to be said that we can interfere with a revenue tariff of that kind without going back upon the grant to India of almost absolute freedom of fiscal policy. The two ideas are really inconsistent, and I am bound to observe of my hon. Friends who are sponsoring these Clauses that they have recognised that fact in one of the Clauses which they themselves have proposed. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth pinned his faith upon, and expressed his desire, if possible, to secure, the acceptance of his proposal for Imperial preference. The Clause appears on page 1758, and if my
hon. and gallant Friend will refer to it, he will find that he recognises the necessary exemption, even from the Imperial preference point of view, of the duties of customs imposed mainly for revenue purposes.

Sir H. CROFT: But not 25 per cent., which, as we have heard, is a penal tariff. Here are you going to stabilise a penal tariff of 25 per cent. as a start?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will deal with that point in a moment. My hon. and gallant Friend says that we have heard of a penal tariff. He put a proper question to the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn, and asked him if he regarded 25 per cent. as a penal tariff. The answer came back, as was expected: "Certainly, it is a penal tariff."

Sir J. HASLAM: Does the Attorney-General recognise the fact that cotton is sold on the basis of one thirty-second of a penny? If 25 per cent. is not penal, I should like to know what penal means.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be angry with me. I am not saying that 25 per cent. may not be penal in its effect, but I think it is fair to recognise that there is a difference between saying that a tariff may be penal in its effect against Lancashire, and saying that a tariff is intended to be penal in the sense of being discriminatory or penal because you want to hurt the person whom it is going to prejudice. There is a distinction. I am pointing out that even my hon. and gallant Friend in proposing a measure of Imperial preference recognises that, however drastic may be its effect, if it is a customs duty imposed mainly for revenue purposes it must be exempted from his proposal for Imperial preference. That admission on his part and on the part of his friends seems to me to rob a great many of his arguments of the value and weight that they would otherwise have. Once you concede that, however penal in its effect, a customs duty imposed mainly for revenue purposes may be, it is to be permissible to the Indian Legislatures and the Indian Government, you have really conceded the case, or gone a long way towards conceding the case, of the Government that the only way you can interfere with Indian action is to prevent that which is
intended to be penal or discriminatory in the sense in which those words have been so often used in these Debates.
Let me say a few words on the first of the two Clauses on page 1734. That Clause is really a proposal for Imperial Preference in another form, and I am bound to say that I prefer my hon. and gallant Friend's first Clause to his second Clause. The fourth Clause at the bottom of page 1734 provides for higher duties not being imposed on United Kingdom imports than on other imports. That Clause makes it quite impossible for provision to be made for any special economic bargain which India may be pleased to make in connection with some reciprocal arrangement with another country. That is a power which the Joint Select Committee very properly pointed out must always be open to the Indian people. Therefore, that is the defect of the fourth Clause.

Sir H. CROFT: It is on page 1761.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have a different Order Paper. May I say a word about Imperial preference? I hope that I am not taking merely debating points about the Clauses. I think there is a substantial point which I must make as to my hon. and gallant Friend's Clauses for Imperial preference. He wants to impose Imperial preference upon India. Mark the word, "impose." Imperial preference is a gift which one nation gives to another in return for similar accommodation. Imperial preference is not a fetter but a boon to be conferred by those who are prepared to give it. If the Government were to attempt to impose Imperial preference upon India, it would not only interfere with the freedom of fiscal policy upon which nobody wants to go back, but it would deprive Imperial preference of precisely that character which has made it so valuable in increasing the trade and developing the connection between two great countries. I should always deplore any attempt to force Imperial preference upon any community within the Empire which has been clothed with the power of making its own fiscal arrangements. Imperial preference as the term itself suggests, is a plan for giving to your own kith and kin, or those with whom you are associated, something which you desire to give to show your closer connection with them than you
have with a foreigner. To impose it upon them as a fetter, a bond from which they cannot free themselves—

Sir H. CROFT: This Bill is imposed in every Clause on India.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. and gallant Friend is not able to rid himself of that rather, I think, inaccurate supposition.

Sir H. CROFT: Ask India?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is no good my hon. and gallant Friend in this Debate trying to convert me to his view, and it is no good my trying to convert him to my view. He merely diverts me from the more immediate matter under consideration, and that is whether any of his three Clauses for forcing Imperial preference upon India can properly be accepted by this House, having regard to both the reasons which I have mentioned in the last few minutes. My hon. and gallant Friend said that he wanted a fair field and no favour. So do we all. What is a fair field and no favour? More than once the 25 per cent. tariff has been mentioned. I am informed, and I have inquired a, little about this matter, that when the tariff was increased up to the figure of 7½ per cent., it was solely due to the increased expenditure during the War. We cannot complain, therefore, of the increase to 7½ per cent. I am told that between 7½ per cent. and 15 per cent. a great deal of the increase, possibly all of it, was rather protective than for revenue. When it was raised from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. it was almost wholly due to causes of world trade. That it was punishing in its effect against Lancashire industries I frankly admit, and so do the Government, and I hope and believe that the high watermark has been reached. I hope there is nothing to prevent me from expressing that hope. I think I have some justification for it in the statement in paragraph 344 of the Joint Select Committee's report, where they say:
We have been assured by the Indian delegates that there will be no desire in India to utilise any powers which they may enjoy under the new Constitution for purpose so destructive of the conception of partnership of which all our recommendations are based.
That is a statement embodied in the report of the Joint Select Committee, but
I understand that some of my hon. Friends—and they are entitled to do it—regard the statements made by the Joint Select Committee as open to suspicion. At any rate, I have two very powerful advocates on my side in this respect, in that Lord Derby and the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) have not gone back upon these proposals that were contained in the report of the Joint Select Committee. I am not going to suggest, having regard to the importance and the prominence of this question, that they would not have taken an opportunity of saying that they did not adhere to the proposals of the Joint Select Committee in this connection. I say no more than that. They have not gone back upon them, and therefore I am led to think that they are very powerful supporters of the view which I now suggest.

Sir J. HASLAM: There is no justification for that statement.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think from the way that I have stated it, it is perfectly justified. They have not gone back upon the view expressed in the report of the Joint Select Committee, and to that extent I think they are powerful supporters of the view which I am now presenting to the Committee. I say again, that if there was a means of devising an impartial tribunal that could fairly hold the scales between these two interests, that are bound to some extent to conflict, the Government not only would be happy but will be happy to give consideration to any proposal of that character; but until that happy moment comes the proposals contained in the Bill seem to go a long way to meet the fears which have been entertained and to allay the suspicions that the Government intend that nothing shall be done to help Lancashire. I am a little surprised that more attention has not been concentrated upon the statement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary yesterday when he pointed out the improvement that has already taken place. It may be slight in degree, but it is in the right direction. There has been an increase in the volume of trade. My hon. Friends who have so far given support to the Government—and I gladly and gratefully recognise it on behalf of the Government—would not be doing any injury to their cause if they were not to vote against the Government on this
occasion, but would help us, if there be any method of obtaining an impartial tribunal, to devise such a tribunal. Meanwhile, they might accept the proposals contained in the Bill, by which there will be not a body but a person in the Governor-General, with the assistance of a staff who will decide questions with impartiality, due consideration and full information. If we build upon the foundations of the policies of good will that have been laid down in the last two years, although some of my hon. Friends may mock at it, we are more likely to advance the interests which we all have at heart than if we try to devise some method that will arouse suspicion without being a practical proposal for achieving our object.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I am sure that the Committee will excuse me for keeping it for a minute from the Division. The debate has ranged over the whole sphere of Indian and Lancashire trade relationship and we are now going to have four separate votes. As certain members for Lancashire constituencies intend to vote against the Government, they should make it clear on what basis they are proposing to vote, in view of the fact that what takes place in this House will be quickly re-echoed in India, and it would be unfortunate if the votes that we give were to be misunderstood in any way. Our intention to vote against the Government on the first Clause is purely on the principle of setting up an impartial tariff board. We do not in any way impune or retract from our support of the Tariff Autonomy Convention. It would be most unfortunate if any vote that takes place in this House were to suggest to public opinion in India that there was an alignment of Lancashire opinion in favour of doing away with the Tariff Autonomy Convention. That is nut our view, and it is not our intention. Neither do we in any way make any attack on the Government in general on this India Bill. We believe that the trade relationship between India and Lancashire should continue, and can only continue on the basis of good will.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 221.

Division No. 157.]
AYES.
[6.46 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Radford, E. A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Remer, John R.


Bracken, Brendan
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Rickards, George William


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hartington, Marquess of
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hartland, George A.
Stones, James


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Carver, Major William H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knox, Sir Alfred
Templeton, William P.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Levy, Thomas
Wayland, Sir William A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Maitland, Adam
Wragg, Herbert


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Nall, Sir Joseph



Cross, R. H.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davison, Sir William Henry
Nunn, William
Mr. Thorp and Mr. Shackleton


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Bailey.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McEntee, Valentine L.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
McKie, John Hamiltor


Aske, Sir Robert William
Goff, Sir Park
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Assheton, Ralph
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Graves, Marjorie
Magnay, Thomas


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Grigg, Sir Edward
Meller, Sir Richard James


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Grunay, Thomas W.
Milne, Charles


Boulton, W. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Harris, Sir Percy
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Burghley, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
North, Edward T.


Butler, Richard Austen
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Parkinson, John Allen


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Patrick, Colin M.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pearson, William G.


Christie, James Archibald
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Jamieson, Douglas
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Cleary, J. J.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Petherick, M.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cook, Thomas A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cooke, Douglas
Kirkwood, David
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rea, Walter Russell


Cranborne, Viscount
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C, (Gainsb'ro)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leckle, J. A.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Daggar, George
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Robinson, John Roland


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Liddall, Walter S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Denville, Alfred
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Doran, Edward
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Salt, Edward W.


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sandys, Duncan


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lunn, William
Savery, Samuel Servington


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mabane, William
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)




Somervell, Sir Donald
Train, John
Williams Edward John (Ogmore)


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Spens, William Patrick
Ward, Lt.-col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Storey, Samuel
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Strauss, Edward A.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Weymouth, Viscount
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
White, Henry Graham



Thompson, Sir Luke
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris




Jones.

The following new Clause stood upon the Order Paper:

(Power to appoint special advisers.)

(1) To assist him in the exercise of those of his functions which arise out of his special responsibilties the Governor may, acting in his discretion, appoint advisers not exceeding three in number who shall have had at least ten years' service under the Crown in India, and whose salaries and conditions of service shall be such as may be prescribed by His Majesty in Council.

(2) The salaries and allowances of any such adviser shall be charged on the revenues of the Province.—[Sir R. Craddock.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Before I call on the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) to move this new Clause 1 think that he cannot escape discussing this proposed new Clause and the subsequent new Clause—(Power of Governor-General to appoint special advisers)—together, but he will have the right to take a separate Division on each of the new Clauses if he so desires.

Clause brought up and read the First time.

6.56 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It raises an extremely important subject, and I hope that the Government will pay special attention to the grounds upon which I am putting it forward. I do not think that the Government or the Committee have fully realised the vast psychological difference which will be made throughout India, and indeed throughout all the Provinces, by the abolition of the executive councils, which have been in existence since the days of Warren Hastings. Every Governor of a Presidency who seeks to make reforms in a Province has at least had an executive council to support and assist him with their advice, on all those subjects which
were reserved under the Montagu scheme. Now we are proposing to get rid of these executive councils and to substitute a Council of Ministers, whose advice is not absolutely binding on the Governor, indeed, in certain respects he may act without their advice and in other cases may seek their advice and then ignore it. Very remarkable powers are left with the Governor-General both in his discretion and in his individual judgment, and it will take a man of extraordinary knowledge and understanding to know when and how his special responsibilities should be acted upon. Ministers are not likely to advise him to overrule them, and, therefore, he will be left as a solitary figure to decide when and where he shall overrule the Council of Ministers in his discharge of his special responsibilities.
The Government plan is that he shall be given a secretary, but that secretary has no position in the Constitution; in fact, he is nothing more than a glorified private secretary and will fulfil functions which have hitherto been fulfilled by a private secretary. There will be no one with a constitutional position or administrative experience to give him advice on those occasions when advice as to the action he should take is most needed. The fact is that the Governor-General will have no less than 11 Governors of Provinces, and, while they may have had a long experience in Indian administration, they vary enormously in respect of the personal equation. Some are ready to act quickly, others are hesitant and timid, and the Governor-General is in the difficult position that he has to decide whether a Governor shall be stimulated to be a little more vigorous or restrained in his activities. He will not have any information before him. Where is he to obtain all the local information of a complete continent the size of Europe If he gets it from the Governor of the Province, the Governor of the Province is likely to
support the action he himself has taken. He will have no independent assistance as to whether he should intervene to induce a Governor to take a more serious view of his responsibility.
There is another point which is very important when we are considering the position which this Bill will give to the Governor. Formerly, before the Montagu reforms, the guiding principle was sound administration with sound, selective advice. Since the Montagu reforms sound administration has been at a discount and political dexterity has been at a premium. It is only natural that that should follow, because under the Montagu reforms, and under his scheme, the members of the Civil Service who had hitherto governed the country under the Governors, were warned and exhorted to turn to the political side and to endeavour to govern by persuasion, by compromise and so forth. The consequence is that the position has receded very greatly as compared with what it was when the Montagu reforms were instituted. I do not believe there is anyone who has yet realised the vast differences that will remain in the position of the Governor in comparison with the position he holds this very day. No Governor has been without an executive council. He has not governed India without consulting somebody. He has not been at the mercy of a group of Ministers elected by a legislature which may be hostile to the British Raj itself. He has never been in that position, and it is only when you see, as I have, the day-to-day work that comes before a Governor that you can really realise what an enormous variety of departmental work there is, what a number of problems arise at various times, and how difficult it is for a new man, unacquainted with a Province, to find out what are the essential things, what are the implications of various orders and policies which are put before him, and, indeed, to ascertain in whom he should put his confidence.
Those of us who served in India know very well that it takes a Governor from England about two and a half years before he really understands what everything put before him means, and the consequence is you find very often that a Governor in the second half of his term of office changes greatly his views on questions of policy. Of this there
have been many examples in the recent history of India. Lord Sydenham, for example, spent two and a half years in trying to conciliate the politicians in Bombay. Then he found his task was hopeless, and he changed his tactics and took measures to put down seditious agitation of which, for the first half of his term, he had taken no notice. It may surprise people to know that the first half of Lord Sydenham's rule was criticised as being weak and full of futile attempts to conciliate implacable people, and the second half was entirely the other way. It was these views which he held at the day of his death. These are views which I put forward from knowledge of the administrative work that comes before persons who are governing a Province. Hitherto, although the Governors may be new, the members of the executive council have been there, and he has always available to him the advice and experience of Ministers.
Under the Bill this will be entirely lacking, and it will be extraordinarily difficult not only for the new Governor from home, but even for the Governor who may be appointed from the Indian Civil Service. Sometimes—in fact, quite frequently—a Governor from the Indian Civil Service is appointed Governor of what to him is a strange Province. I had that experience in Burma, and I know how hopeless it was for a long time to find out what were the proper steps to take when you had advisers who took two opposite views on certain questions of policy. It ultimately rested on oneself to make up one's mind as to which of these was right, or to adopt some middle course. It takes you a long period before you really feel you are on safe ground and can make your decisions with reasonable courage and assurance.
All these aids of experienced officials who have been brought up in administration are practically gone so far as the Governor is concerned, and I may say at once that this is a Clause which I would equally have moved had I been a warm supporter of this Bill, because I see in this omission a fatal flaw in the scheme put forward for provincial autonomy. I may be told I am prejudiced, although I do not think so myself.

Sir H. CROFT: You speak from experience.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I have had my experience, and I think I have been, at all events, open-minded on all great questions that have come before me. In case it may not be thought that my advice is quite unbiased on account of my long career in the Civil Service, I would like to call a witness. The witness I am calling is the late Governor of Bombay, Sir Frederick Sykes. When he submitted the opinions of the Bombay Government on the proposals of the Statutory Commission, he appended to them a minute which he directed should be sent to the Government of India with his own Government's dispatch on the subject. I ask the Committee if they will kindly pay close attention to the few quotations that I propose to make from Sir Frederick Sykes's minute. He says:
As regards (1) (the Constitution of the Provincial Governments and the Governor's powers) I feel that, assuming that there are in a Presidency or Province a good Legislative Council, experienced and broadminded Ministers, and infrequent emergencies, the Constitution recommended by the Commission, which, except in some matters of detail, has been accepted by my Government, may be workable; but we have to try to organise, of course, on the possibility that these three assumptions, so far from materialising, may prove in fact to be far from the realities. It appears probable that emergencies may frequently occur, at all events at the outset, in one or other Province, and the Governor concerned will find himself in the position of having either to use his emergency powers, which may antagonise his Ministry, or to neglect the interests of a section of the public. A newly-appointed Governor, in particular if from home, and with no permanent official of the Cabinet responsible to him, will especially find his position difficult should an emergency arise before he has had time to grasp the conditions in his, Province, to discriminate between the claims of various communities and parties, and to learn whose advice he can trust. The absence of any experienced official in the Cabinet, on whom he could rely for advice in dealing with an emergency, will be a conspicuous disadvantage of the new régime, seeing that the Secretaries of Departments will presumably not have the existing right of regular access to the Governor. They will be Secretaries to Ministers responsible to the Legislature, and as such may be put in an awkward position if the Governor calls on them for advice on any particular question. Unless, therefore, the administration runs smoothly and emergencies are infrequent, I have some doubts whether the Constitution proposed for the Provinces will prove workable.
The Governor then goes on to discuss the great difficulty he will have if he overrides
the Ministers and they resign in consequence, and still further if these men are returned at the next election with the same or a larger majority. He also points out that in such a case:
He would therefore have to decide that the situation is so grave that he must declare an emergency to have arisen and to take over the whole administration personally. In this event, also, he will be faced with difficulty in choosing Ministers on whom he can rely to carry on the administration. He will have no members of Council on whom he can fall back, and will have to select Ministers from among officials and non-officials, none of whom may hitherto have held positions carrying such responsibilities.
The selection of his Ministers under such circumstances would be an extremely difficult matter.
It may be said that a position such As is described above is not likely to arise frequently. It cannot, however, be ruled out, and under such circumstances it would seem that the Governor is given responsibilities without machinery for reasonable warning of the approach of crises and means of meeting them which would prove workable in practice.
That statement was made by Sir Frederick Sykes, a Governor sent out from this country, and who, no doubt, is well known to many members of this House. He certainly carried to a great extreme attempts to conciliate the agitators, and he tried to use persuasion to bring them to reason, but he felt the difficulty. He had two and a half years' experience when he wrote that minute, and he fully realised what a terrible position he would have been in had he come to Bombay under the new constitution, without any knowledge either of the Ministers on whom he had to depend or of the details of the administration he had to carry out. Therefore, I do urge the Government to think well before they reject the advice which I tender to them in good faith and with no desire to use the case as an opportunity of marking opposition to the Government, but as advocating the filling up of a gap which my long experience makes me realise may be an extremely serious one, and one which in certain circumstances may render the welfare and the success of the new reforms extremely precarious.
I know that the Government will probably say that the secretaries will have a certain amount of access to the Governors. I daresay they will, but I am sure, the more I have learned of the
administration both before and after the reforms, that the position of a secretary who is constantly what will be called running and sneaking to the Governor, will be untenable; and in fact, if the Minister found or thought that the secretary was spying on him or giving information to the Governor as to the conduct of the Minister, that secretary would stand a very small chance of being retained as secretary. It is a well-known principle in Indian administration that men, officers, have no claim to be secretaries to Governors as they have a claim to certain other posts. The selection of a man from the district to be secretary must rest with his superior officers. A man cannot say "Oh, I have a claim to this appointment," nor, if he does not please the Governor or the authority under whom he is serving, can he say that he has any grievance if he is told "We do not seem to get on very well together and you had better go back to a district."
One must also remember—I say this without any disparagement—that in the Indian Civil Service there is a tendency for Ministers to gather into the secretariat a larger proportion of Indian members of the Service than of British members. I have had that said to me many times by people who have experienced it, and they were not making any special complaint but were urging it as a fact. You may be quite certain that many Indian members of the Indian Civil Service who have probably to spend their lives in the country and who may depend, after this or that Governor has gone, upon the Minister for their further selection or appointment as secretary, will find it very difficult to go up to the Governor and report upon the doings of a Minister. Sometimes Governors do not like inconvenient information to be given to them. That makes it all the more important that the Governor should have one or more experienced administrators as counsellors to help him in the exercise of his responsibilities, and help him in sizing up what are the implications of the problems put before him, and put before him very often in a way which may prove deceptive. I do not think that the private secretary or secretary of the Governor appointed by himself can ever fill that position.
I particularly note the case in which, under the Bill, in connection with certain police sections, the Governor is supposed to nominate some official to represent him on the Legislative Council. I am sure that that system will not prove satisfactory. What is wanted is what Sir Frederick Sykes suggests, a sort of extra member in his Cabinet, and not a stray messenger to be sent round to interview Ministers from time to time, having himself no permanent constitutional position in the Government. All these considerations put together and weighed make it absolutely essential that Governors should be given these experienced administrative assistants. There is no reason why there should be friction with the Minister, because they will not be administrating any particular department; but they will receive papers of various kinds which will enable them to keep a vigilant watch and inform and advise the Governor accordingly. It is also very possible that some of the papers received by the Secretary to the Governor will be complaints against the Minister. It will be very difficult for the Secretary or the Governor to know what to do with these complaints. If he sends them to the Minister then the Minister may put into force influences against the man who had the courage to complain, and these influences may prove disastrous. If he sends them to some district or divisional officer then he is sending to a subordinate complaints against his superior.
Anyhow, that raises a great difficulty in the absence of some adviser who can advise to good purpose in these matters. The Governor will not be any worse for having these men in addition to his private secretary. It might very well be that a Governor, anxious to get a private secretary, will select a man who has had all his experience in secretarial work and therefore has no such close acquaintance with administrative problems as the kind of officer he would select to be one of his counsellors and advisers. For these reasons I strongly urge the Government to give ear to this advice which I am honestly tendering to them, and to try to find some method of filling this gap by one or more counsellors.
I now come to the second of the new Clauses, which is of much the same kind as the first. It suggests that the Governor-General should be given three or more counsellers to assist him. The
matter is not quite so urgent in the case of the Governor-General, for the reason that he has already three counsellors. But it is a great pity that the Bill does not say specifically that he may consult them also on the matter of special responsibilities. Of course, he will have one counsellor who will deal with military matters, one who will deal with external affairs, and a third who will deal with ecclesiastical affairs. If the last-named has an hour's work a week that will be about all he has to do. That particular counsellor could no doubt be entrusted with other matters. At the same time no doubt the Governor-General himself would find it better if he were aided by one or two counsellors who had had long administrative experience, because the counsellor who advises him on military affairs and the counsellor who advises him on external affairs may have had very little administrative experience such as would be extremely useful to the Governor-General if he had papers sent to him from the Province by the Governor to consider and advise upon. I hope that the Committee and the Government will not turn a deaf ear to these proposals.

7.27 p.m.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: I would like to express my great appreciation of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). He speaks on this subject with very great authority, and I am sure the Committee will be grateful to him for having given it the benefit of his great experience. I am bound to say that on a question like this advice, coming from a man who has held the responsibility that my hon. Friend carried in India, must carry very special weight. At the present moment a Governor going out to India without experience can rely on the advice of an Executive Council over the whole range of decisions which he has to take. Under the new Constitution he will have two kinds of responsibility. In the first place he will be a constitutional Sovereign, taking the advice of his counsellors; but apart from that, over the whole range of decisions in which he has to exercise his individual judgment or in which he bears a special responsibility, he will now be deprived of any advice whatever. That seems to be a dangerous position in which to put a man who may go out to carry this
great responsibility without any previous knowledge of the matters which he has to determine and without any previous administrative experience. For that reason I feel very strongly inclined to support this new Clause.
I see a certain difficulty in the new Clauses, even in that which relates purely to Governors. If you are going to give to Governors this advice, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it will not do to give it in the form of private secretaries. That produces a kind of centre of intrigue without responsibility which I am sure will not work in any administrative system. But I also see a difficulty about creating advisers of ministerial rank or even superior in some respects to ministers, with no definite responsibilities of their own except that of offering advice to the Governor. In the case of the Governor-General that difficulty does not arise. His special counsellors would all have their own particular responsibilities. But I do see a difficulty in creating in the government of a Province an adviser who would be a kind of mayor of the palace, having the private ear of the Governor, but without any actual administrative responsibility. For that reason I see a certain objection to the proposed new Clause as it stands. Nevertheless I hope the Government are prepared to give consideration to the point which my hon. Friend has raised, and that it may be possible to find some means of equipping the new Governors with that responsible and experienced advice which I am sure they will need.
As regards the other proposed new Clause on the Paper to which reference has been made, I see no necessity for it. As I say, the Governor-General has his counsellors and they have their responsibilities, and the point seems to be met in that case. But the position of the Governors is going to be more difficult in many ways than that of the Governor-General. In fact the provincial part of the Bill is going to be harder to work than the federal part, and it is extremely important that we should give every attention to that part of the Bill, on which the whole Committee is agreed. I do not think there is any section of the Committee which is opposing self-goverment in the provinces, and it is extremely important that the Governors
who will have to carry great responsibilities under that part of the Measure should have the opportunity of consultation with men possessing experience of India and a knowledge of its conditions.

7.33 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I agree with the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) that the proposed new Clause is an important one. Actually the Committee is being asked to consider two new Clauses which embody the same idea. I also agree with what my hon. Friend has just said about the contribution of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), who has had great experience, having, himself, acted as Governor in two Provinces. He is aware of the difficulties which are involved in the administration of a Province and of the need which a Governor has for special advice in administering a Province. The hon. Member for Altrincham was also right, I think, in referring to the difficulty attaching to the new Clauses as they stand on the Order Paper. It would be extremely invidious, in fact impossible, under such a system as we propose, which is in fact responsible government in the provinces—for that is what provincial autonomy implies—to have officials, as he described, like mayors of the palace alongside Ministers who are responsible to the elected assembly. It would be impossible, for instance, if one had three or four such Ministers, to have side by side with them three or four official watchdogs of the Governor all watching what the Ministers did. It would be regarded as extremely offensive by Indian Ministers, and any good result which might be expected to flow from their appointment would thereby be immediately nullified. The Government agree however that the matter is one which deserves consideration, and it has received close consideration.
I should like to mention also in this connection the experience of Sir Frederick Sykes, whose opinion has already been quoted. Any representations which he makes after his recent experience as Governor of Bombay are deserving of the respect of the Committee. Hon. Members will realise that in Clause 33,
Sub-section (3) (c) of the Bill as it stands, it is provided that the salaries and allowances of the personal and secretarial staffs of the Governor-General and the staff of the financial adviser are non-votable, and there is an equivalent Clause in the provincial section of the Bill. There is therefore the necessary supply enabling a Governor-General or a Governor to surround himself with and pay for the staff requisite to assist him in the performance of his duties. There may be many things upon which a Governor-General or Governor will need the advice of a staff. We have further examined the Bill, however, and we find that, although there is a negative provision for supply, there is no positive indication on the face of the Bill as it stands that the Governor-General or Governor has the power to appoint such a staff.
The nature of the staff I propose to discuss in a moment. At present I am only referring to the power of appointment. We are prepared, either when we come to consider the Third Schedule or later on the Report stage, to insert something which will make it clear on the face of the statute that the Governor has power to appoint any staff necessary for the discharge of these duties. Then the matter will be made clear. It will then be open to a Governor-General or a Governor to surround himself with the sort of staff which we have in mind, and provision for the supply of which is already included in the Bill. We are indebted to the hon. Member for the English Universities and the hon. Member for Altrincham for calling attention to the subject because, as I say, the power to appoint such a staff was not actually apparent in the Bill as drafted. There is in Clause 7, Subsection (3) provision for enabling the Governor-General to discharge conveniently and with dignity the duties of his office, and it was intended that those words should cover the provision of a staff but they are not thought to be sufficiently explicit to meet the anxieties of certain hon. Members. I hope however that the undertaking which I have just given will go some way towards relieving those anxieties.
I think it is incumbent upon me in answering the very comprehensive speech of the hon. Member for the English Universities to say something about the nature of the staff which we have in
mind. I cannot agree that the appointment of a secretary or a secretarial staff would result in all kinds of intrigues centering round the Governor and would be unsatisfactory. I think it would be much less unsatisfactory than creating, as the hon. Member for the English Universities seemed to desire, an extra member in the Governor's cabinet. Stated in that way the hon. Member's suggestion really comes back to a discussion which we have already had upon the question of an official member of the cabinet. That proposal has been discussed and rejected by the Committee, and I do not propose to go over that ground again except to say that the Government cannot possibly envisage a counsellor of that type, namely an official, who shall be a member of the cabinet. It remains for me therefore to reassure the Committee about the sort of staff which a Governor or Governor-General may have.
In the case of a Governor, if it is a matter of accepting advice in the performance of his office, the advice which he must receive is the constitutional advice of his Ministers, and that is why the word "advisers" in the proposed new Clause is very confusing particularly to Indian opinion. If, on the other hand, in exercising his special responsibilities the Governor has to differ from that constitutional advice we have always been clear that the Governor must make up his own mind in the best way he can, and we have always wished him to have a secretary of some standing who could help him in such a matter or in any other duties arising especially in the exercise of his discretion. In a case of a Presidency where a Governor would go out from England without any previous experience of Indian conditions we have envisaged that the Secretary to the Governor should be a man of considerable status, a man say of 20 or 25 years' service, perhaps of the rank of Commissioner—a man of standing and repute who would be beside the Governor advising him and helping him as his personal attaché and secretary.
I do not think the Committee should be led into believing that there is anything derogatory in the word "secretary." There are Secretaries of State and the word "secretary" is used in a general sense. By saying that the Governor would have a private secretary, one
does not mean that the secretary would be a man of no experience and no reliability and merely a person to conduct social affairs. We envisage in the case of a Presidency, especially where a Governor has not previous knowledge of India that under the new Constitution the secretary should be a senior man capable of giving valuable help and advice, such as has been the case in the past. We also envisage as I have pointed out that, the supply for this purpose being non-votable, the Governor can if necessary have assistant, secretaries to do any work which may appear to be necessary under the new Constitution. I think therefore the object of the hon. Member will be met by that, description of the sort of staff which we have in mind.
In a Province apart from a Presidency it is possible that the secretary would be a senior man even though the Governor would probably be a man who had resigned from the Indian Civil Service himself, and would have more experience of Indian conditions than a man going out from England. However, we are purposely leaving that question open in order that it may be decided on the spot by the Governor-General or the Governor. In the case of the Governor-General I want to make it clear that we believe that the views of the British Indian Delegation summed up in paragraph 188 of the Joint Select Committee's report are correct. We do not mean to take away from the position of the counsellors who are to administer the reserved departments. We wish the Governor-General to have the benefit of the advice of the counsellors, but we are providing him with the opportunity of having a personal secretarial staff in exactly the same way as we are providing the Governors with that opportunity. I hope I have shown that we have taken some trouble in trying to meet the spirit of the proposed new Clauses, although I am sure we have not gone as far as the hon. Member for the English Universities would desire. We have at least attempted to show that we think the Governor-General and the Governor will need help of this sort, but we do not intend that there shall be any competition, in a question of constitutional advice, with the responsibly-elected Indian Ministers.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I feel a little nervous about the remarks of the Under-Secretary. It seemed to me that he was rather expanding the staff of the Governor as suggested in the report of the Joint Select Committee, and I was glad to hear his final words that it was not intended to infringe the responsibilities of Ministers. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) seems to be looking back to the days when he was a Governor. He forgets that he is now an agitator. We are all agitators here because "agitator" is only a rather impolite name for politician. You may be a red agitator or a black agitator, or whatever colour of agitator you like, but you are still an agitator.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I hope I have not agitated the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member by his agitation has stirred many people's minds. I was, however, rather afraid about the Under-Secretary's suggestion that the Governor of a province was to be surrounded by a phalanx of retired Indian civil servants.

Mr. BUTLER: Not retired.

Mr. ATTLEE: Then, shall I say a phalanx of Indian civil servants of great seniority? I agree that there should be a responsible secretary with experience capable of giving information to the Governor. I was in India for only a very short time but I was struck by the fact that most of the Governors seemed to have very junior A. D. C's. as their only advisers, and I certainly think they ought to have something more than that. But I hope it does not mean that the Governor is going to be allowed to appoint a whole number of people as official advisers. Really the object of the hon. Member for the English Universities, although he has put it rather nicely, is to get back to the old pre-reform days. The whole of his idea is that the right and normal way of governing India is by civil servants, who will not have anything to do with the agitators at all. He really wants that it shall all be done by civil servants of 20 or 30 years' experience. However, this Bill is intended to give self-government to India, and I think the hon. Member should not try to give responsibility with one hand and to take it away with the other. I understand
the difficult position of a Governor going out to India from this country, but I do not think a Governor's second thoughts are necessarily better than his first thoughts. I should not agree that Lord Sydenham, for instance, was a more enlightened man after four years in India than when he went out. Quite the reverse. After all, the suggestions in this Clause are only an attempt to go behind the object of all the reforms in India, ever since the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms.

7.47 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I want to support what was said by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), and particularly in regard to the second new Clause. As it has not been possible for me to take part in the debates on this stage of the Bill, apparently that fact has been misinterpreted in some quarters as meaning that I am supporting the provisions of the Bill. I want most emphatically to repudiate that suggestion, which was insinuated by the Attorney-General this afternoon. In my view the safeguards in the Bill are wholly inadequate for the purposes for which they are designed, and unless the Governor-General has advisers such as are proposed in this Clause, he will not be able to carry out those safeguards.

Question "That the Clause be read a Second time" put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Directions by Federal Executive to Provinces.)

(1) The executive authority of the Federation shall extend to the giving of such directions to a Province as are necessary for the purposes of:

(a) securing in that Province the observance and execution of any laws of the Federal Legislature which apply in that Province;
(b) securing that any functions entrusted by the Governor-General to the Government of a Province or to its officers are properly discharged:
(c) securing that any powers and duties conferred by an Act of the Federal Legislature upon a Province or the officers and authorities thereof are duly exercised and discharged:

(2) If it appears to the Governor-General that effect has not been given to any directions given under this Act either by the Federal executive authority to a Province or by the Governor-General (whether acting in his discretion or otherwise) to the Governor of a Province, the Governor-General, acting in his discretion, may issue as orders to the Governor of that Province either the
directions previously given or those directions modified in such manner as the Governor-General thinks proper.

(3) If it appears to the Governor-General that any orders issued by him under this Act to the Governor of a Province have not been obeyed the Governor-General may, acting in his discretion, but after consultation with his counsellors and the Advocate-General for the purpose of securing obedience to his orders as aforesaid, direct that all moneys for the time being in the hands of or under the control of the Federation which are assignable or payable to the Province in which the orders of the Governor-General have been disobeyed shall be withheld from that Province until such time as the said orders have been obeyed to the satisfaction of the Governor-General.—[Sir H. Croft.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.48 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the Clause is to secure control by the Federation over the Provinces and also control by the Governor-General over the Governors and Provincial Governments. I hope the Committee will read this Clause in connection with Part VI of the Bill. The scheme of the Clause is that directions can be given to enforce Federal authority. That is the object of the Clause. If the directions are disregarded, they can be followed up by orders, and, if the orders are disobeyed, then financial sanctions can be imposed. I do not want to delay the Committee at any length on this Clause, because I think those who have been taking an interest in the Bill will have appreciated the fact that it is necessary that something of this description should be included in the Bill. Clause 125 provides in certain cases for directions and orders, but this new Clause extends that principle, and Sub-section (1, a) is designed to give practical effect to Clause 122, Sub-section (1, b) is designed to give practical effect to Clause 123 (1), and Sub-section (1, c) is designed to give practical effect to Clause 123 (2).
I think it will be at once admitted that in the Bill at present there is not sufficient power for the Governor-General to take over in the situation which is contemplated, and I hope the Under-Secretary of State will be able to accept this new Clause. It is reasonable in its application, and I think he will agree that there has been a good deal of disquiet
about this subject as to whether the difficulties contemplated are adequately covered. I should be very glad if the Under-Secretary of State could give some indication that the Government will meet us over this extension of policy. I think it will be agreed that this is a subject on which there will not be any serious conflict of opinion as between one Member of the Committee and another, and the Government have had the support of the great flowing tide in the Lobby of various allies from the Socialist and Liberal parties this evening on another question, when they would otherwise have suffered a very severe moral defeat. I hope on this occasion they will endeavour to do what they can to meet an opinion which has no party aspect whatsoever, but which is calculated to strengthen the Bill.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) was very soft, and cooed like a turtle dove in moving this new Clause, but he emitted to stress the sanctions contained at the end of the Clause. The first part of the Clause appreciably tightens up the control of the Federation over the units, and I shall not say very much about that, except that it puts in a form which we regard as less satisfactory certain Clauses of the Bill, notably the Clauses to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. But it is when we come to Sub-section (3) that we really take exception to this new Clause. Subsection (3) gives a sanction to the Governor-General that any
moneys for the time being in the hands of or under the control of the Federation which are assignable or payable to the Province in which the orders of the Governor-General have been disobeyed shall be withheld from that Province until such time as the said orders have been obeyed to the satisfaction of the Governor-General.
This introduces a completely new idea to our discussions and for the first time suggests that the scheme of Federal finance as outlined in the finance Chapter of this Bill shall be governed by the very important considerations set out in this new Clause. This means that the autonomy in finance which is the heart and the essential part of provincial autonomy can be taken away if the Governor General is not satisfied with the
method of obeying his orders under the previous Sub-sections of the new Clause.
It really introduces the principle which was put before the Joint Select Committee by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). It savours of the policy of grants-in-aid, though actually it does not include that proposal, because it attaches a financial sanction to the scheme of Federal finance set out in the Federal finance Chapter and means that those moneys in the Federal finance Chapter which are not at present to be taken away from the Provinces may be withheld from them in a completely arbitrary manner by the Governor-General in the circumstances detailed in the new Clause. The hon. and gallant Member will perhaps remember that the Statutory Commission investigated closely this question of the control of the Provinces by the Centre, and Sir Walter Layton, in the financial portion of the Statutory Commission's report, also investigated it. I think perhaps the most striking sentence from their report against the principle of this new Clause is contained in their second volume, in paragraph 158, which reads:
A system of grants-in-aid by the Centre to the provinces…would involve some measure of central control and would run counter to the whole trend of constitutional development which we are recommending. We are endeavouring to complete the process of decentralisation by constituting the provinces as self-governing units in a federation.
As I have said, it is not literally a system of grants-in-aid that is suggested, but financial sanctions are for the first time suggested, and we regard that as equally obnoxious and equally against the spirit, not only of our Bill, but of the report of the Statutory Commission. I do not want to pursue further the whole question of the control of the Federation over the Provinces, because I think our view has been given in earlier Debates. It is very tempting in any Federation to consider that some sort of coercion should be possible from the Federation over the units, but in a federal form of government it is vital that we should not on the one hand approve of provincial autonomy and on the other hand take it away by saying that in certain circumstances you must have financial sanctions, and thus stop the whole growth of responsible government. For these reasons
I regret that we are not able to accept the new Clause.

Sir H. CROFT: May I ask what the hon. Member proposes to do in the final resort? How does he mean to meet a situation which we hope will never arise?

Mr. BUTLER: I do not think I can give every single instance, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will glance at the Clauses of the Bill which are contained in Part VI, he will see the various provisions set forth. It is true that in some cases there is no ultimate coercion, and it is not in the spirit of a federation ultimately to coerce a unit. For instance, in questions of labour legislation, which we have so often discussed, many of us would have liked to coerce the units, but it is only by a system of agreement that it is possible to arrive at the proper results. Take the question of health. It would be by an institution of an Inter-Provincial Council, which is provided for by Clause 133, that some agreement would be able to be arrived at on a uniform policy for health, and it is by agreement rather than by coercion that uniformity is achieved in a federation. In cases of emergency, of course, it is possible for the Governor-General to give direct orders to the Governor of a Province, and the Governor in his discretion will then have to carry out the orders of the Governor-General. That, I think, meets the point made by the hon. and gallant Member about emergencies.

7.58 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I am very sorry that my hon. Friend has not been able to give a more sympathetic reply on this new Clause, because the object of the Clause is to provide machinery to make this Federation work, which the Bill does not provide. I entirely dissent from the view which the Government have expressed that it is improper in all circumstances for the Federal Government to withhold financial assistance to the Provinces. You have in finance a very potent lever for inducing the provincial authorities to work in harmony with the Federal Government, and that is a principle with which, after all, we are very familiar in this country. The Ministry of Health, for instance, in making grants-in-aid to the various local authorities exercises a power of supervision and makes conditions under which those grants-in-aid shall be forthcoming. Of
course the analogy is not complete, but there is the same principle, and I submit that it is a very sound principle, because, after all, if you get a Provincial Government which is deliberately following a policy which is contrary to that of the Federal Government, you will have an impossible situation. You will ultimately be faced with the sort of position which has arisen in Western Australia. Friction will increase from year to year, matters will go from bad to worse, and you will finally be faced with a demand for the secession of a Province from the Federation. The great merit of using financial pressure in the early stages of these differences of opinion and policy, is that you have there a weapon which is not only very potent but very subtle. Clause 125 empowers the Governor-General to issue orders to the. Governor of any Province, and that principle, of course, is reinforced in this Clause which we are now proposing.
The method of financial pressure, which the Governor objects to so much, is really a much more direct and easier method of applying authority. An order which is issued may be disobeyed. I do not suggest that it will be disobeyed by the Governor. But you do not want to allow matters to reach that point. If a Provincial Government realised that by pursuing a certain policy it might forfeit the financial assistance it might otherwise get from the Federal Government, it would be deterred from following that policy in the initial stages, and you would not get to that unfortunate situation where two Governors took up irreconcilable attitudes and there were no means of smoothing over the difficulties.
I therefore regret very much indeed that the Government have rejected this weapon of financial pressure, and rejected it so scornfully. I do not think that there is anything derogatory to the Provinces in having such a machine. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary spoke about the incompatibility of Provincial autonomy with a measure of this sort, but the truth is that you cannot have complete Provincial autonomy in a federation. You have got a contradiction in terms. It is just like the Indian Princes, who, until they saw the Bill, believed that they could enter the Federation and have complete self-government in their States. Directly
they saw the Bill, they found that it was impossible, and I venture to suggest that the more they study the matter the more they will see that it is inherent in the Bill. If you are going to have complete Provincial autonomy, then you will not get a federation that is a federation. It will simply be a collection of independent States, all of whom will be liable to pursue their independent and perhaps conflicting policies, with the result that one day you will get a breakdown. I think that the example of Australia shows us the dangers that apply to any Federation where the residual powers reside in the Provinces rather than at the Centre. The Australian Commonwealth in that respect has always been substantially weaker than the Dominion of Canada or the Union of South Africa, and the Government here are deliberately following—in fact extending—the principle on which the Commonwealth of Australia was established.
I believe that the sort period during which that commonwealth has existed, under conditions incomparably easier than those that will be met with in India, has shown the very great dangers which are inherent in any federation where the residual powers reside in the Provinces. The Government are giving the Indian Provinces so great powers, they are depriving the Central Government of so many powers, that I cannot believe that this Federation will stand the test of time, and it is for that reason that I very much regret that the Government would not give a more sympathetic hearing to this proposal. This is not a wrecking Amendment. It is not an Amendment which represents our ideal. We offer it as a contribution, something which we believe to be necessary if the Federation is to stick together. But, if the Government reject it, then all that we can say is that it will not be our fault.

Mr. ATTLEE: The proposal that has been put forward is one that interests me a great deal and that I myself several times put forward and tried to get a scheme which would be workable, because it looked so attractive on the analogy of our local government system. But I confess that I was always beaten, and probably the Noble Lord will confess that he has been beaten. This new Clause assumes that the Governor might refuse to obey the orders of the Governor-
General, and it is the British Governor, or it may be the Indian Governor, of a Province whom you are proposing to distrain upon in the way of finance in order to bring him to heel. The point is that you cannot conceive the Governor whose duty it is to see that the Federal Authority is maintained having to be coerced by financial measures. The Governor is the executive authority in the Province and the instrument of the Governor-General.

Viscount WOLMER: Is not my hon. Friend ignoring this point, that, if you rely entirely on the Governor-General issuing orders to the Governor, you are relying on what I may call the safeguard power? I should have thought my hon. Friend wanted to keep the Governor-General and the Governor, acting in their discretion, out of the picture as much as possible. Suppose the Governor is desired by his Ministers to take an act which is contrary to a decision of the Federal Government, then our Clause would operate in this fashion. The Governor-General, acting under the advice of his Ministers, would set this machinery in being, and that would be the constitutional remedy which the Federal Government had against a Provincial Government. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) wants the matter to be dealt with, as it were, personally, between the Governor and the Governor-General, each acting in his discretion and using his safeguard powers. The whole of his argument depends on the Governor-General issuing these personal orders to the Governor.
That is not the development of constitutional machinery. You are now trying to erect a constitution which you hope will function in a Parliamentary fashion. We want to give some sanction which the Federal Government can impose on a Provincial Government. The hon. Member for Limehouse says that is quite unnecessary because it is inconceivable that the Governor of any Province would disobey the orders of the Governor-General. I agree, but I do not think that it is at all inconceivable that the Cabinet or Government of any Province may desire to disobey the orders of the Federal Government, and I should have thought that the hon. Member would have liked to keep the whole business
on a Cabinet plane rather than on the plane of Governor-General and Governors. I submit that this measure of the financial lever, which works so efficiently as between the Government in Whitehall and our local authorities in a strictly constitutional manner and not in a personal manner, would be applicable to the sort of condition which the hon. Member would like to see in India.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: The Under-Secretary a few moments ago advanced a most extraordinary proposition. The essence of his argument was that in this or, for he stated the proposition generally, any Federation, there should be no coercive power in the Federation in relation to the Provinces. But in the sixth part of the Bill, particularly Clause 125, power is taken for the Federation to coerce the Provinces. It was very difficult to follow the Under-Secretary and understand exactly what he meant. It may be that it would be sufficient for his argument for his proposition to be stated more narrowly, but the effect of it was that it is wrong to give to the Federation power to coerce the Provinces. But this power is already taken in the Bill: or rather coercive powers are taken in the Bill, but no power is conferred by it. We desire that the Federal Government should have not merely powers, but power, to secure compliance with its decisions by the Provinces.

8.13 p.m.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would like to say a few words if only to clear up the accusation made by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). He thinks that there are what he calls residual powers possessed by the Commonwealth of Australia being conferred by this Bill on the Provinces of India. That is not so. It is clear that in this Constitution there are two main lists, one dealing with subjects in the Federal sphere and one dealing with subjects within the Provincial sphere, neither of which can attempt to impose on the other. Then there is the concurrent list. Suppose some subject comes up—and this is the residual point of my Noble Friend—that is neither in the Federal list nor in the Provincial list nor in the concurrent list, then it is a matter entirely for the
Governor-General, under Clause 104, to lay down whether it is to be regarded as a Federal or Provincial subject. The whole object of this Constitution is to prevent anything in the nature of the type of constitution that we have in this country between Parliament and the local authorities.
There are two clear divisions between what is the legislative and executive field in the Provincial Legislature and the legislative and executive field in the Centre. The whole idea of grants-in-aid is fundamentally unsound and wrong. The Province should look to its own sources of revenue when dealing with its services, and the Centre should look to its own revenues. The essence of Provincial autonomy is that there should not be interference from the Centre in the Provincial sphere, any more than we in this country interfere with the subjects, either legislatively or administratively, which are within the province of Northern Ireland. I agree the analogy is not exact. They have their own subjects which are dealt with in the Parliament at Belfast, and we here deal with other subjects. It is most undesirable that there should be the idea that under this Constitution there will be the old unitary form of Government where all the services derive their authority from the Centre. The whole scheme of the Bill and the report of the Joint Select Committee emphasises the fact that the grant-in-aid system would be inimical to the whole structure of the Bill, and because this proposed Clause raises a fundamental difference between our whole conception of the future Constitution of India and that of the Noble Lord, we naturally resist it.

8.17 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I cannot refrain from saying this to my right hon. Friend. No doubt what he says about the underlying idea of the Government is true and accurate, but our point is that it is a mistaken idea and is not likely to work well and cannot work well. He gives the example of the Government of Northern Ireland. I think I am right in saying that this House, in the short time in which that Government has existed has given something very like grants-in-aid towards that Government. I can remember an occasion three or four years ago when this House was called upon to
make a heavy payment to the Government of Northern Ireland—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that this Debate is getting very much wider than the Noble Lord's new Clause would justify.

Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry if I have trespassed beyond the Rules of Order, but my right hon. Friend gave the instance of Northern Ireland, and I was concerned to point out that the system of grants-in-aid did obtain and had had to be used. I believe that in any Federation it will be found that it is impossible on certain subjects for the Provinces to follow diametrically opposite policies. Just consider the sort of mentality you are trying to generate in Indian politics. You have held up to the Indians, and they have held up to themselves, the ideal that India as a whole—the unification of India—is the underlying idea of this Bill. That ideal is inconsistent with the ideal which my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner has explained. I do not think it can be done. You will find in practice that if the Provinces pursue divergent policies on matters which, though they may be provincial, yet do excite interests and passions throughout India, you will inevitably get a clash between the Centre and the Provinces. Our submission is that by coaxing the Provinces into uniformity with the gentle, yet persuasive weapon of finance, you might avoid a great deal of trouble of that nature. I know that the Government take a contrary view, and I very much regret it.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to limit operation of provisions of Chapter III of Part V.)

If at any time it appears to the Governor-General to be in the interests of good government in India that any of the preceding sections of this chapter should not apply in relation to any provision of a Federal or Provincial law, the Governor-General in his discretion may recommend to His Majesty that the application of the said preceding sections be limited accordingly, and His Majesty may, by Order in Council declare that the application of the said preceding sections is limited to the extent necessary to give effect to such recommendation, or to such lesser extent as shall to His Majesty seem expedient, and the application of the said preceding sections shall, as from the date of such Order in Council, be limited accordingly:

Provided that the Governor-General shall not in any case make a recommendation under this section which would have the effect of excluding the application of any of the provisions contained in the said preceding sections ensuring reciprocity in the treatment of British and Indian subjects of His Majesty, respectively, and of companies incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and under the laws of British India, respectively.—[Mr. Molson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause relates to the Chapter in the Bill which has already been passed dealing with commercial discrimination, and its purpose is to give to it some element of flexibility or elasticity. It provides that in cases where the Governor-General is of opinion that the interests of good Government in India require that some of the provisions of that Chapter should be limited, he may make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, and, if the Secretary of State is of the same view, he may advise His Majesty to limit the operation of those provisions by Order-in-Council. Under Clause 286 of this Bill, it is provided that in all cases where Orders-in-Council are made under the Bill they shall only be made after the draft has been approved by both Houses of Parliament by an affirmative resolution. The last part of the Clause is a proviso. The Committee has provided in this Chapter that British subjects domiciled in this country and resident in India shall be protected against certain discriminatory measures, but only so long as no similar discriminatory measures are taken in this country against British subjects domiciled in India. Since the purpose of this Clause is to enable the Order-in-Council to limit the operation of the safeguards which have been inserted in the Bill for the benefit of the European community in India, it was not intended that this power should extend to removing that limitation upon the safeguards which have already been inserted. The purpose of the proviso therefore is merely to prevent the power being used to make unconditional the protection given to Europeans and restrict it to limiting the protection which has already been given.
It may seem inconsistent that, after I have moved so many Amendments to this
Chapter in order to tighten up and increase the protection which is given to British commerce and to the British community in India, I should now be moving a new Clause the effect of which will be to enable that protection to be suspended or limited in certain cases. There is really no inconsistency at all, as is shown by the fact that I am moving the Clause with the approval of the European community in India. We have always recognised that one of the great difficulties of statutory safeguards of this kind is their rigidity. If the Imperial Parliament provides that certain measures shall be ultra vires the Indian Legislatures, it is difficult for the draftsmen of the Bill to foresee all the possible contingencies which may arise and exactly what interpretation by the courts maybe put upon the wording of the Statute. There is, therefore, a great danger either that the safeguards may not be wide enough for our purpose, or that they may be wider than is intended. This has become clear in the Debates upon some of the Amendments I have moved in which I asked the Government to agree to wider terms in order to include all possible contingencies, and the Government have very reasonably taken the view that because it was impossible to foresee all contingencies it would not be wise to put in any words the full effect of which they could not foretell.
That is an important consideration from the point of view of the Government, because these safeguards will be interpreted by the courts, and the safeguards as they are provided in the Bill can only be suspended or repealed by Act of the Imperial Parliament. But it has occurred to us, and it was implicit in the report of the Simon Commission when they thought there were insuperable difficulties in the way of including in the Government of India Bill statutory safeguards of this kind, that it might happen that reasonable people would consider that something which might technically be ultra vires was a perfectly reasonable and proper step for the Indian Legislature to take. It is not inconceivable that what would be interpreted by the courts as being discriminatory against Europeans would really be in the interests of the European community, but because these safeguards were absolutely rigid and were being interpreted by the courts it would be possible for a single disgruntled and unreasonable man to
impugn in the courts the validity of legislation of this kind, and it would then be impossible for that legislation to be brought into effect in India without an Act of the Imperial Parliament. I do not ignore the fact, in fact, is an argument in favour of this Clause, that the Government have anticipated the possibility of something of that kind arising in Clause 111, where they have already given the Governor-General power, under certain conditions, to suspend the operations of Clause 111. It is also, of course, provided that the whole of the safeguards may be suspended if, under Clause 117, a convention is entered into between this country and India. We consider that it is desirable that there should be some elasticity, some flexibility, for dealing with unforeseen and perhaps unforeseeable circumstances.
We are in favour of this Clause for three reasons. In the first place, because, while we demand that there shall be adequate protection for the European community in India, we do not desire that that protection shall at any time in the future operate in an oppressive or unreasonable way and unduly restrict the liberty of the Indian Legislature. In the second place, we foresee that should some difficulty of that kind arise, and should there be need for legislation in this House to repeal some of the provisions of this Bill, it might very well be that the repealing Bill would be far wider than we should desire; that while something was repealed which ought to be repealed, another protection which was most necessary and most valuable might be repealed at the same time. In the third place we advocate the Clause because, on a number of Amendments which I moved, the Government undertook to consider matters between now and the Report stage, and if this Chapter remains as rigid as it is at the present time it is obvious that the Government will find it very difficult to go very far towards meeting us; whereas if there was this provision by which unforeseen difficulties might be removed without the laborious and cumbrous procedure of legislation in this House the Government could give us more complete and adequate protection on the Report stage than has been accorded so far.

8.31 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): My hon. Friend the
Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) has pressed for an extension of the non-discrimination Clauses, if I may so describe them. He supports them as far as they go but would like to see them go further. He also submits that his Clause would introduce a measure of flexibility which would enable the safeguards against discrimination contained in those Clauses to be abrogated or modified by the simpler procedure of Order-in-Council in preference to an amending Bill. I think that is a fair summary of the arguments which he put forward. He also said, quite frankly, that he has pressed the Government in Committee on various points and may press them further on the Report stage, in order to extend the purview of these Clauses, and that in view of that it is only fair that he and those for whom he speaks should be willing to agree to a Clause of this kind to introduce what he describes as a measure of flexibility into the non-discrimination safeguards set out in the Bill. I can assure my hon. Friend that what he has said, particularly in these circumstances, deserves and will receive very serious consideration. He comes before the Committee as someone specially interested in certain safeguards but saying he is willing that they should not be so rigid as they would be if this Clause were not inserted.
But having said that I must say that, as at present advised, we prefer the Bill as it stands. These non-discrimination Clauses are Clauses to which every section in the House attaches very great importance. I agree with him that the European associations represent the people primarily interested at the moment, but I think my hon. Friend will not dispute that all sections in this House attach very great importance to these non-discrimination Clauses, and our idea is that we should restrict these Clauses to what I may call the fundamental principles of non-discrimination. That is why, when my hon. Friend has moved his Amendments we have said at times that he was going rather outside what would be proper in a Constitution Act. My hon. Friend said this procedure by Order-in-Council was clearly more flexible than procedure by Bill. If by express words we introduce into a part of this Bill this element of flexibility, to some extent we are obviously contemplating the necessity of change. If we are right in thinking that these
Clauses should be restricted to what I call the fundamental principles of nondiscrimination, I suggest that it might well be undesirable to accept a new Clause of this kind and to introduce into the Bill a procedure which inevitably suggests you contemplate the necessity for changing them.
The matter depends, of course, largely upon the difference between passing Bills in this House and the procedure by Order-in-Council. If we are successful in enshrining in these Clauses those principles and those principles alone which ought to be observed and preserved for all time, we need not contemplate as a likely contingency the possibility of ever having to pass an amending Bill or submitting an Order-in-Council. Those, it seems to me, are the issues which are raised by the proposed new Clause. I can assure my hon. Friend that, for the reasons which I have given, what he has said will certainly receive our serious consideration, but I should be deceiving him if I said that, as at present advised, I thought the proposed new Clause would be an improvement of the Bill.

8.37 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I have listened to the speech of the Solicitor-General with more pleasure and appreciation than to all his other speeches on the Bill. It would be a very dangerous thing if the Government accepted the proposed new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson). Goodness knows, the protection of British trade in the Bill is scanty enough as it is, but my hon. Friend proposes that the Governor-General may get the home Government completely to remove by Order-in-Council those few safeguards. I cannot imagine a more dangerous proposal. The Government are telling the people of Lancashire and other British traders who are concerned in this matter, as well as British traders in India, that there are certain fundamental safeguards in the Bill to which the Government attach a very great deal of importance, and it appears to be a preposterous proposal that those fundamental safeguards can be wiped out by Order-in-Council and that the Governor-General and the Secretary of State together, in fact, by a stroke of the pen, as I understand from the speech of my hon. Friend, can remove
those safeguards without this House—

Mr. MOLSON: Will the Noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him, but is he aware that in Clause 286, where it is proposed to issue an Order-in-Council under the Bill, an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament is required?

Viscount WOLMER: I had not understood that my hon. Friend's Clause was covered by that provision, and, if that be the case, I withdraw that particular criticism. It seems to me very wrong indeed that safeguards of this importance should be subject to such uncertainty. A Clause of this kind might very often put the Governor-General into a very invidious position. He may have a ministry which is anxious to do something discriminatory against British trade which they would not be permitted to do by the Bill as it stands. The Government would go to the Governor-General and say "We want you to get an Order-in-Council passed to enable us to do this, and if you do not agree we shall make ourselves objectionable to you in the hundred-and-one ways which are open to us under the Constitution." The Governor, if he is mortal, will be sorely tempted to try to make a compromise.
I would remind the Committee that it would not be the first time that the interests of British trade have been given away by our politicians. There is a very sorry history in that regard. Even the greatest statesmen are apt—so far as I can make out, the greater the statesman the more apt he is—to give away what belongs to other people and to give it away with the very greatest generosity. Very often the maxim in politics is "Peace in our time, O Lord," and concessions are made to get out of some Parliamentary difficulty although a few years afterwards, and not immediately, they may have the most calamitous effects upon British trade. I hope that the Government will stick to their present advice, and that they will not be influenced by the persuasive speeches of the hon. Member for Doncaster to knock down the few remaining safeguards which are in the Bill.

Mr. MOLSON: In view of the reply which has been given by the Solicitor-General, who, I understand, has undertaken to consider the matter between
now and the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

8.43 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I wish briefly to call attention to the arguments put forward in support of the proposed new Clause by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson). He said that he could not be accused of inconsistency or of any opposition to the principle of safeguarding trade, because he had been so anxious during the passage of the Bill to get such safeguards inserted, but he felt that there might be too much rigidity in the matter. So he proposed that what he had so carefully been putting into the Bill—into what will be an Act of Parliament—it should be within the power of the Governor-General and the Secretary of State to take out by Order-in-Council. It is true, as the hon. Member pointed out, that under Clause 286 an Order-in-Council has to have the approval of Parliament within 28 days after the date on which the Commons House first sits after the making of the Order:
unless within that period resolutions approving the making of the Order are passed by both Houses of Parliament.
Anybody who has had any considerable experience of government as it is practised in this House, will know the enormous difference between the likelihood of amending legislation being introduced which has to pass all through its stages in this House and then all the stages in another place, and the Government finding time for any such legislation. There is no question that the procedure by Order-in-Council would be a perfectly simple, easy and short way of annulling what this House has been spending 30 days in Committee to consider and put into final shape. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Doncaster—I always thought he was a stickler for constitutional and Parliamentary practice—placing so light a value on the labours of this House that he would deliberately introduce this new Clause to give power to the Government very simply to annul many of the safeguards which we have been asked to regard as so fundamental and so essential, and to do it by a cheap and easy way, almost on any occasion, without any loss of Parliamentary time.
We all know the argument about loss of Parliamentary time; the Government seem to make it a general rule. Therefore, if a safeguard is to be really a safeguard, the one fundamental need is that it shall not be possible to take it aw ay without another Act of Parliament. That is the important point, which probably my hon. Friend fully appreciates, but which he ignores. In using the argument that this proposal is not inconsistent with what he has hitherto been proposing, he shows how completely ingenuous and honest he is in his intentions. I believe that, when speaking in the House yesterday—I was not myself present—my hon. Friend made some rather scathing references to the consistency of hon. Members who were proposing that some security should be provided for British trade. He said:
When I hear their speeches I am no longer surprised that Englishmen have, unfortunately, a reputation for hypocrisy in so many countries of the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1935; col. 137, Vol. 301.]
My hon. Friend is very scathing about hon. Members who disagree with him on this Bill. He uses a very nasty word, "hypocrisy," with regard to us, which I think is quite undeserved. But I shall not make any retort of that sort. I can only say that this Clause, far from showing that my hon. Friend is consistent, seems to me to lay him open to the imputation that he is very inconsistent, in that he has taken, according to his own admission, a considerable amount of the time of the House in helping to put into the Bill safeguards for various British interests, and now proposes at the eleventh hour largely to make them nugatory by doing away with the ordinary and, as some people would say, cumbrous process of amending legislation and putting a weapon in the hands of this or any future Government by which they could defy what Parliament is now so laboriously doing. I should have thought that my hon. Friend was too good a Parliamentarian and constitutionalist to have lent himself to such procedure as that which he now proposes.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Imperial Preference.)

(1) Save as hereinafter provided, all duties of customs imposed on goods imported into India shall in respect of goods which are shown to the satisfaction of the
Customs Department to have been consigned from, and grown, produced, or manufactured in any part of the British Empire, other than the Dominions, be reduced in the case of a duty levied by value by not less than ten per cent. ad valorem or by at least one-third of the duty, whichever is the less, and in the case of a duty levied by weight or other measure of quantity the duty shall be reduced by an amount not less than as near as may be to ten per cent. ad valorem or by one-third of the duty, whichever is the less.

Provided that the provisions of this Subsection shall not apply to any duty of customs imposed mainly for revenue purposes, and in respect of which the Governor-General in his discretion certifies that the application of this Sub-section would involve a serious diminution of the revenue, and further provided that this Section shall not apply in respect of goods consigned from any part of the British Empire which does not extend to goods consigned from and grown, produced, or manufactured in India preferences to an extent, so far as may be, substantially not less than provided for in this Sub-section.

(2) So long as the United Kingdom accords to goods consigned from and grown, produced, or manufactured in India, preferences not less than those accorded to goods consigned from and grown, produced, or manufactured in any other part of the British Empire, the duties imposed on goods imported into India and consigned from and grown, produced, or manufactured in the United Kingdom shall not, exceed such level as will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of relative cost of economical and efficient production, provided that in the application of such principle special consideration may be given to the case of industry not fully established.

(3) For the purpose of ascertaining whether any goods are, for the purpose of this Section, to be treated as grown, produced, or manufactured in any other part of the British Empire, the goods shall not be deemed to have been manufactured in a part of the British Empire unless such proportion of their value as is prescribed by rules made by the Governor-General in the exercise of his individual judgment is derived from materials grown or produced, or from work done, within a part of the British Empire.—[Sir H. Croft.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.48 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
As we understood that, in view of the latitude which has been allowed in the Debate, there would be no Debate on these individual Clauses. I hope I may be permitted to say that it is not the intention of my hon. Friends to divide on more than one of the Clauses dealing with the question of Imperial Preference with India. Therefore, we would choose this particular Clause upon which to divide, in order to save time, as this Clause embodies a formula very similar to that adopted by the Dominions after the Ottawa Conference.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 179.

Division No. 158.]
AYES.
[8.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Remer, John R.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rickards, George William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Levy, Thomas
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Broadbent, Colonel John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Carver, Major William H.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Moreing, Adrian C.
Templeton, William P.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Nall, Sir Joseph
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wragg, Herbert


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Perkins, Walter R. D.



Greene, William P. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Mr. Thorp and Sir W. Wayland


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Batey, Joseph
Christie, James Archibald


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds. W.)
Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Boulton, W. W.
Cleary, J. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cook, Thomas A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cooke, Douglas


Aske, Sir Robert William
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Crooke, J. Smedley


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burghley, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Butler, Richard Austen
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Balniel, Lord
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Banfield, John William
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Daggar, George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leckle, J. A.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leonard, William
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denville, Alfred
Lewis, Oswald
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Liddall, Walter S.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Edwards, Charles
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Elmley, Viscount
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Salt, Edward W.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Llewellin, Major John J.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Logan, David Gilbert
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Goff, Sir Park
Mabane, William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Graves, Marjorie
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Grigg, Sir Edward
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Grimston, R. V.
McKeag, William
Spens, William Patrick


Groves, Thomas E.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Magnay, Thomas
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stones, James


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Harris, Sir Percy
Martin, Thomas B.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Milne, Charles
Sutcliffe, Harold


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Milner, Major James
Tinker, John Joseph


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Turton, Robert Hugh


Holdsworth, Herbert
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Alton)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.



O'Neill. Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Weymouth, Viscount


Jamieson, Douglas
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.



Janner, Barnett
Orr Ewing, I. L.
White, Henry Graham


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Owen, Major Goronwy
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Patrick, Colin M.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pearson, William G.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Ker, J. Campbell
Petherick, M.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Kirkwood, David
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.



Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Law, Sir Alfred
Radford, E. A.
Sir Walter Womersley and Major


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
George Davies.


Lawson, John James
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Special provision as to the education services.)

If, after the commencement of Part III of this Act, circumstances arise which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, render it desirable so to do in order to maintain efficiency in the education services in any Province he may appoint to any post in those services, and may determine the pay and conditions of service of all persons appointed in accordance with the provisions of this section—[Mr. G. Nicholson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I feel that I should apologise to the Committee for raising such a vast subject at a moment which is clearly more or less inauspicious, but I beg the indulgence of the Committee and their forgiveness if what few remarks I make are rather staccato, as I have a wide field to cover, and it is my intention to cover it as fully
as possible in the minimum of time. I realise that this is not the time for a general disquisition on the whole subject of education in India. I move this Clause for two reasons First, I wish to do something for the cause of education in India; and, second, I do not think that it would be consonant with the dignity and with the reputation of this House if such a vast matter as education in India were passed over in the course of the debates on this Bill without a single moment being devoted to its discussion.
The object of the Clause is quite clear. It is to give the Secretary of State power to make appointments in the education services of any Province if there appears to him to be good reason to do so; in other words, if there is grave deterioration in those education services. I want to be perfectly frank. I do not expect the Government to accept this new Clause to-night. In the absence of the Secretary of State that would be ridiculous, but I am bold enough to hope that the
wide measure of support which the Clause has received, and which, I hope, it will receive during the course of the Debate, may persuade hon. Members on the Front Bench to ask the Secretary of State to give the matter his serious consideration before the Report stage. It will be noticed that so wide is the support which I have received, that
Even the ranks of Tuscany
Could scarce forbear to cheer.
I am very glad to receive the support of the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), but I want to make it clear that I refuse to be answerable for any excesses or atrocities that may be committed by the Tuscan regiments. I shall not press this Clause to a Division.
I want to give the Committee a brief outline of the situation as regards education in India. It is a subject that was entirely transferred under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. The next great landmark in the history of the transferred subject is the Lee Commission, the result of which has been that since 1924 there has been no further European recruitment or indeed any recruitment to the Indian Education Service, and two years ago—these are the latest figures I have—there were only 93 members of the Indian Education Service left. I want to make it clear that, as a transferred subject, in my opinion, education has been very well managed and directed. I am not one of those who join in the general criticism of Indians and Indian politicians, owing to their administration of education.
There are certain very ominous symptoms in the educational position as it exists in India to-day. It is a fact that no Province has yet instituted a superior education service which it was intended should replace the Indian Education Service, but I wish to dissociate myself entirely and completely from the statement that education in India has deteriorated owing to the reforms. I make no such charge. I am not quarrelling with the existing policy with regard to education. My contention merely is that in the event of a serious breakdown the Secretary of State should have reserved powers. I shall be told that I am merely trying to add to the list of safeguards, and to a certain extent that is true, but
I submit that this is not an ordinary safeguard and that education is in a category by itself. I maintain, and I am sure that I shall have the Committee with me, that education, of all the services that this country has rendered and is rendering to India, is the most disinterested. I say with a perfectly clear conscience that my suggested Clause is purely in the interests of India, and not in the interests of England, and that by no stretch of the imagination could this country be accused of selfish motives were this Clause accepted.
I have said that I fully realise that this is not the time for a general disquisition on the subject, but it is such a fundamental one that I am compelled to beg the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments longer. I do so, because I am convinced that not only the successful working of this Bill, but the whole future of India itself depends upon education in India. I want to ask hon. Members a very fundamental question. What, in their opinion, are we trying to do in India? What is our main ideal in India? Do we limit ourselves to the enforcement of law and order and to the administration of justice? Shall we consider that our duty is done when we have set the feet of India upon the path of material prosperity? I feel that our duty and our destiny are far greater than that. As I see it, we are trying to build up in India a civilisation that shall embody all that is greatest and best in the English tradition; one that will learn from our failings and profit by our mistakes. Our ideals, in short, are those which every father should have for his son. I cannot believe that we shall carry out these ideals merely by establishing material prosperity. Nor do I believe we shall do so merely by the force of the example of the thousands of Englishmen who have given and are giving their lives in the service of India. I claim that if India is to benefit to the full by the experience of the West it can only do so by means of education services which embody the best that England has to offer. This belief is abundantly justified by what is being accomplished in India to-day.
A certain type of person constantly decries educational work in India. Nobody can shut their eyes to the shortcomings and the failings of educational work in India to-day, but it would be
equally foolish to ignore the great work which is being done. I do not wish to deluge the Committee with statistics, but a few are necessary. There were two years ago over a quarter of a million recognised and unrecognised institutions for the education of boys and girls. There were in those institutions nearly 13,000,000 pupils, including 1,100,000 of the depressed classes. I do not wish to weary the Committee, but I do not think that hon. Members can have any idea of the vast extent of the educational machine in India, which includes many universities, technical colleges, art colleges, high schools—several Provinces have over 1,000 high schools—middle schools, and elementary schools of all sorts. It is a tremendously impressive list that I could offer to the Committee did I think the moment more auspicious or hon. Members more interested in the subject. I content myself with saying that I personally feel more proud of England's work in education in India than of any other branch of our achievement.
The system that we have erected in India is easy to laugh at. It is easy to laugh at the efforts of an Eastern race to assimilate Western education. Our comic papers are full of examples of the mistakes that the Baboo makes with the English language. It is easy to criticise and easy to mock at. It is easy to laugh at the workship of the examination system which obtains in India. But anybody who has been in India, for however short a time, sees more of pathos than of humour in the educational system that exists there, and more pathos than humour in the thirst for knowledge that is a most prominent feature in Indian life in the year of grace 1935. I do not think so much of the humorous mistakes of the Indian student in learning the English language as of the thousands of parents who are literally starving themselves in order to provide education for their children. I think of the scores of thousands of devoted teachers scattered through the length and breadth of the land who exist on a pittance that would be ludicrous and would indeed be a matter for laughter were it not the actual truth that men and women are attempting to exist upon such pittances. I can think of cases within my own knowledge. I think of every village in India—and
there are half a million of them—demanding schools. There is something to my mind infinitely pathetic in this demand, this clamour for education. Education, which to the Indian is the key to the higher life and to everything that makes life worth living. That is the most prominent feature of Indian life to-day.
In this very enthusiasm for education there resides the danger for education in India. The main danger is that quantity will be increasingly substituted for quality. The record of every Indian Legislature since the last reforms is on those lines. They say, "We are spending, say, 100,000 rupees on 1,000 schools, which is 1,000 rupees per school," and they desire to spend the same amount of money but to have twice the number of schools each costing half as much, as before. It is obvious that that sort of thing must result in progressive deterioration, but it is not so obvious to them. There are other grave dangers in the Indian educational system—one is the increasing neglect of female education. Then there is great danger of communal education, with every community in every village demanding its own communal school. You will have your school attended by Hindus, your "maktab" for Mohammedans and various secondary schools, and perhaps an agricultural school. I ask the Committee to remember that this is an alien system embodying alien principles and alien ideals, and it depends for its success entirely upon direction and inspection by the right kind of person.
I wish I could make the Committee see as I see the difference between the right type of high school in an Indian Province and the wrong type. I am thinking of two schools that I visited a few months ago. One was all that was lamentable in education, directed by a drunken head master, existing on a mere pittance, while the other, a few miles away, was the finest thing in education. The school magazine of that school would give a picture comparing favourably with the school life of any secondary school in this country. It all depends on education and inspiration from above. In other words it is essential that English standards should be maintained. I have no reason to doubt that all that I have said is fully recognised by Indians in India today. I am not making any criticism of the educational ideals that obtain in
India. My point is that the consequences of deterioration, however unlikely that deterioration may be, will be so serious that we as Parliament in this country can in no wise be justified in risking such deterioration.
I am prepared to face the idea of a breakdown in any other branch of Government than in education. You can restore quite easily law and order. You can restore irrigation. You can even restore defence, and you can certainly restore public health, but it takes a long time to restore a breakdown in education. I speak perhaps in an exaggerated way, but I could face the loss of 50,000,000 lives with far greater equanimity than the loss of the whole educational system of a country. This Bill is an experiment: a perfectly justifiable experiment. We are entirely justified in experimenting with the lives, the safety and the happiness of the people of India, but I do not feel justified in making an experiment at the expense of unborn generations and of the Indians. Completely washing our hands of education in India will be making such an experiment.
I understand that the First Commissioner of Works is going to reply to my feeble effort. I can almost make his speech for him. He will say that he entirely agrees with my remarks, with what he imagines I have been attempting to say, but that in any case this is a transferred subject, and we cannot go back on our steps. He will say that if there was a lack of wisdom in transferring this subject that is the responsibility of those who carried through the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, and that to go back on those reforms would be a slap in the face for Indian opinion. But is it impossible to go back? I ask the Committee to note that in this proposal I suggest giving the power of appointment to the Secretary of State; in other words, to this House, not to the Governor-General or the Governor. Secondly, are the Government justified in saying that my proposal would be regarded as a slap in the face of Indian opinion unless it has already been mooted in India? I shall not attempt to press the matter to a division, but I would ask the Under-Secretary or the First Commissioner of Works to pass on
my request to the Secretary of State that this matter should be mooted in India before the Report stage, that there should be some investigation undertaken. I should consider it the gravest derogation of our responsibilities towards present and unborn generations in India if we abandoned all responsibility for the education services in this sub-continent.

9.17 p.m.

Sir W. SMILES: In supporting the new Clause, I should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has read the latest report of the Director of Education for Assam, which was published in December last. I read it in the "Assam Times," and the Director of Education commented upon the fact that in the examinations for girls in Assam none of those from State-aided schools were in the first 10. They were from schools run by missionaries or at any rate private schools, and he regarded this as a scandal and disgrace. I was a member of the Assam Legislative Council about 1924 when we had a European instructress of schools, but on account of financial stringency she was dismissed. Returning in about 10 years' time I see this report, that the standard of female education has sunk considerably since the European instructress of schools was dismissed. I do not say that it happens in every school in India, but I have been told by Indians that many of the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses are underpaid. What can you expect from a schoolmaster who arrives at 10.30 a.m. when the school should start at 9.30, and the first thing he does is to write down in the diary "Arrived at half-past nine." I do not put that forward as a joke, because that is the kind of education administration you get when people are underpaid. I hope the First Commissioner of Works, if he has a few minutes to spare, will read the report of the Director of Education in Assam, and in that case I am sure he would be sympathetic towards the new Clause.

9.20 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I should have put my name to this proposal but for the fact that I have been ill. It affects materially those whom I represent, the Anglo-Indians. The schools to which Anglo-Indians go are mainly run by Christian missionaries or the Church in India Perhaps the biggest of these
schools is the Bishop Cotton school at Bangalore, and I understand that Bangalore is now to be handed over to the Maharaja—a place which has been a British station for nearly 100 years is to be handed back and with it the Bishop Cotton school. The Maharaja of Mysore is an educated and enlightened man and as long as he is on the throne everything will be well. But we have to remember that in the course of time another Maharaja may be on the throne and that this particular school, and others like it, may fall into decay. This proposal is absolutely essential in order to preserve the education of Anglo-Indians, who after all are statutory natives of India and have a right as natives of India to education. They have a right to education in schools such as we have in this country. It may be a non-sectarian school, but it is a school of essentially a British character, because the Anglo-Indians have been brought up in the traditions of Englishmen.
Therefore, I feel that the new Clause is of vital importance to the community I represent, and I beg the Secretary to look far into the future when this Bill becomes an Act and the government of India is in the hands of Indians. We are still responsible for the community which we created, who, without education are bound to fall and go under. Hon. Members opposite are great believers in education. This is one of the safeguards for the education of Anglo-Indians for whom we are responsible, and I beg the Secretary of State to give it his gravest consideration before he turns down a proposal which is absolutely essential to this community to-day.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I can ease the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin) at once. This proposal does not affect in any way Anglo-Indian schools, and, if it were added to the Bill, it would not make the slightest difference to them. We have passed Clause 83 which safeguards the grants to Anglo-Indian schools, but above all the essential point to bear in mind is that the Anglo-Indians have their own school boards, make their own appointments and do their own recruiting. This proposal merely means a resumption by the Secretary of State of recruiting for the ordinary Provincial schools under
ministers in the Provinces, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that if he thinks the new Clause would help him in any way he is quite mistaken. He need have no anxiety. The point to which he has referred has been abundantly met and covered.
I honestly think that my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) has made rather too heavy weather of the Clause which he moved, which is, after all, limited to a, narrow point, although it has been made the basis for saying many things about education in India in the past, present and future. The Clause is really confined to a proposal to give the Secretary of State power to resume the recruiting of personnel for the educational services which have been transferred. It is always very difficult when speaking from this Box to remember that one is not a private Member. I remember that when I was a private Member, at the time of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, being particularly keen on the transfer of education to Indian Ministers and to the Provincial Councils, because nobody was more critical than I was then—possibly ignorantly—of the system of education under the British Raj in the old days. There have been individual cases of remarkable effort by remarkable individuals in the educational services. But, rightly or wrongly, I have always taken the view that from the time of Macaulay onwards—and going back even further than Macaulay to the day when Warren Hastings failed to carry his point against the Anglicisers in this country—the whole basis on which we attempted to base our educational imposition on India was unsound. All the time I was at the Colonial Office and working on the committee of education at the Colonial Office, I endeavoured to prevent what was allowed to happen in India happening in the Colonial Empire. I think it was a fundamental mistake that we put all our money, all our personnel and all our effort into higher education for the children of the intelligentsia, and lamentably neglected rural and primary education.
That is the tragedy of India during the last century. It is because I see under the reforms a real effort on the part of Ministers, particularly in the Punjab and the United Provinces, to concentrate on primary education and to adapt the education to rural environment and to
rural needs, that I welcome the results of transfer. Let me at once contradict the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth when he talked about the deterioration of girls' education since the reforms. May I point out that the number of pupils in Government schools in India has gone up between 1918 and 1932—the last year for which I have official figures. The number of girls has gone up by 100 per cent. and the number of boys by 33⅓ per cent., and there has been a most encouraging progress in the provision of further facilities for female education in the Provinces. I want to emphasise that because I think it was an unfortunate suggestion that female education has been neglected by Ministers under transferred education.

Sir B. PETO: Does my right hon. Friend ask us to believe that the question of numbers proves anything as to the value of the education?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. I was not talking about that. I was replying to the speech of the hon. Member for Morpeth, who suggested that there had been a decline in female education. As I was saying, the figures of quantity show an opposite result. As to the point of quality, it is true that since education has been transferred there has been a conscious effort by Indians to change the character of the education given in many of the schools. Remember what we have always concentrated upon. Ever since the old days we have concentrated upon academic education—examination standards and mark-earning capacity. That was the old tradition we imposed on India, and we imposed it particularly in the literary form. We also imposed it, remember, with this great limitation—that whereas that academic education in this country is accompanied in all our schools by some religious education, all that we could give India was the academic English education without any religion. In fact we gave them early Victorianism plus a sort of enforced agnosticism. I am not surprised at the result. Those who have read the recent book on Warren Hastings will remember how he endeavoured to resist those at home who belittled the culture, the drama, the literature, the art and the history indigenous in India. Macaulay came along
and said this idea was valueless and that the whole object of education should be to impose Western ideas and methods of education upon the Indian people. Since the reforms, and since the transfer of education, there has been an element of re-nationalisation in Indian education, and I believe that the Indians have had to start again in their primary schools in some of their educational effort. I would be the last to belittle that attempt. I do not want to recall my own discussions of this subject in the past; they are no doubt unsuitable for anybody speaking from this Box. But what is the authoritative report on this subject? It is the report of the Hartog Committee, and this is what they say on this matter:
So far as we have been able to judge, the Ministers have shown themselves zealous for the advancement of education—particularly of primary and rural education—and some of them have shown marked abilities in dealing with the practical problems before them. They have inherited many defects in the present system as a legacy from pre-reform days.
That is a great tribute by the Hartog Committee to what has been done. I would only say this, that it is rather a reflection on the educational system of India that education should be, both in quality and in quantity, so much more advanced in several of the leading native States than it is in British India. Nobody can gainsay that. In Travancore and Baroda, and in other States, it is definitely ahead. And, of course, there they have combined what the West can give in the way of science and art and the like with the preservation of all that is best in the national tradition.
I do not know much of India, but I have been almost all over the Colonial Empire, and there our whole effort has been to prevent the denationalisation of education, to preserve the vernaculars, to build upon them, to use the Mother tongue of the children as the main medium of instruction everywhere, and to introduce European subjects after the traditions of the life and environment of the child have formed the basis of education. I cannot help thinking that if that had been the policy in India—I see it to-day beginning again to be the policy in India—India would not present us with such political, administrative, and, above all, with such sad problems and difficulties as we have to face in the minds and
hearts and very souls of some of the people.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We shall all feel indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having delivered the speech that he has just delivered. It was time that speech of that sort was delivered in this House, and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having taken the trouble to enlighten us as to what precisely has happened in regard to education in India in the last 10 or 12 years. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Mover of this new Clause did make rather heavy weather over this subject, and perhaps unnecessarily. Let us not be unduly severe with the Indian people. I do not wish to excuse anything that is evidence of any deterioration, if such evidence can be adduced, but, after all, these people have had a tremendous task confronting them. What is a period of 14 years for people to leave a lasting impression upon an educational system so widespread as that of British India? I have heard one or two comments, which I frankly confess rather amused me, from hon. Members who have spoken. For instance, an hon. Gentleman cited, not on his own authority, but on that of someone in India, a certain educational report in Assam. What was the point there made? It was that in some educational results that were presented the first 10 places were taken by the pupils of missionary schools as against the State schools. But the first 10 places had to be taken by someone, anyway.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: A similar thing very often happens here.

Mr. JONES: That is the point to which I was coming. Examine the results of, say, a competition for exhibitions at Oxford or Cambridge, and it will be found that large numbers of them are taken by children from the elementary schools. Is that a reflection on the public schools of the country? If it is a scandal that pupils of the State schools of Assam do not take first places in the competitions of Assam, equally it is a scandal that our public schools take second place to the elementary schools in competitions in this country. There is not very much in that. It is a small point and not a fair point to advance against the general approach of the
Indian people to a very heavy and responsible task.
It is quite true, judging from what I have read of education in India, that they do tend to attach undue importance to academic results. But what of that? It is only some seven years ago that we ourselves in this country had a report presented to us on our own post-primary education, and it was the comment of the Hadow Committee that we ourselves are applying too much of an academic standard to our educational work here. Now we are inviting education authorities up and down the country to reorganise education so as to provide for practical-minded children. If the Indian reformers apply themselves to the task of providing for the vast population of children in the countryside by equipping their schools or developing a curriculum that is applicable to the agricultural needs of the country, then I wish them God speed in their efforts, for one of the most deplorable results of our secondary schools here has been that we have emphasised so much the clever child's needs as against the needs of the ordinary child. If the Indian reformers feel that there is something in the Indian culture that ought to be harnessed to this great task of educational progress, by all means let them do it. I am all in favour of the retention of these cultural traditions in a country. I wish that the traditions of my own little country had been safeguarded more in the past in the schools of my country. But in a country like India, where they have a noble tradition, cultural as well as otherwise, it is all to the good that the schools should be encouraged to develop a respect on the part of the children for their cultural inheritance.
I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman pay his very remarkable tribute to the approach by the Indian educational reformers to their task. But I would add this, and here perhaps I am with the Mover of this new Clause: It is encouraging to have this testimonial given, but perhaps, in common with others who desire to be understood to be sympathetic to the Indian people's aspirations, I may be allowed to say that I hope that the Indian people, and the Indian reformers in particular, will take special care to see that education is amply safeguarded in future by them. The instrument of education is a most
potent weapon in the building up of an efficient democracy such as we hope may be realised in future in India. Nations march on the feet of little children, and if this Bill becomes an Act the children of India may be introduced to a civic responsibility such as their fathers were never called upon to take. I am sure that in facing that new civic responsibility education will be a most potent force.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I want to express my gratification that the question of education has been discussed. We have to thank the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) for putting down this new Clause so that the question could be raised. It would have been a pity if 30 days had been given to the debating of this Bill and some time had not been given to education, a subject upon which the future of India so largely depends. I only hope that in the midst of our comment upon education in India we shall not forget the very remarkable contribution that has been made by the missionaries. The work that has been done by the missionary in India in relation to education has been a factor of untold consequence. In particular I would refer to the work of the missionaries among the depressed classes. I have had opportunity of learning something about the work which has been done in districts like Hyderabad among the depressed classes, and the fact that those classes have now some prospect of coming into a fuller share in the life of India is due to the work of the missionaries probably more than to any other single factor. A great tribute was paid by the Statutory Commission to the missionaries when it was said that their work had given hope to people who had been hopeless for generations and centuries. I think that is a remark which ought to be made when we are discussing this subject to-night.
I feel myself in general agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works but I wish he would get away from Macaulay. I thought his reference to Macaulay, in the Second Reading Debate, was one which would not be approved of in India. Probably there would be much stronger approval of Macaulay in India than the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give. Macaulay's
famous note is one of the most remarkable contributions that has been made to the study of Indian history. It was based on considerable study and was not a decision arrived at casually. Although the right hon. Gentleman spoke of being saved from political difficulties, there we had the Tory speaking rather than the educationist. Macaulay thought that the teaching of our Western ideas and our Western literature would inspire the love of liberty. He said in this House that if we gave Indians education the time might come when as a result of it they would demand Western institutions, and, if they did so, it would be the proudest day in our history. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, in referring to the political difficulties upon which we have entered, wished that the Indian people had never made that demand.
I think that the ideal before the Indian is something better even than the development of his indigenous institutions, and that is the combination of all that is best in East and West. Sir Rabindranath Tagore has said that the combination of what has been learned in the West with the philosophy of the East may bring some contribution to civilisation which would not be possible from this country alone and would not be possible from India alone, and in a very remarkable book published the other day, "The New Empire," by Mr. K. M. Panikkar, the writer asked why some effort should not be made to bring the achievements of British art home to the Indian people. He said it would be well worth the while of this country to spend money in putting before the people of India, especially the educated youth of India, some of the best examples of British art, and he suggested that a few thousand pounds spent in that direction might have remarkable results. In the past the mistake has been made of dealing with the Indians as if we were dealing with an uncivilised people. We are of course dealing with a people who had a highly developed civilisation before this country had emerged from the mists of antiquity. India had a system thousands of years ago under which the teacher took the supreme place in society and was honoured above all others.
While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he made just now,
I hope he will not refer to Macaulay again or, if he does, that he will pay the tribute which ought to be paid to a man who, perhaps next to Burke, would be recognised in India to-day as a sort of intellectual bridge between India and ourselves. If the educated Indian has that regard for Macaulay, I do not think that this House is the place where Macaulay ought to be disparaged. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman is attaching too much importance to the books written of late by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping is not the best judge of Macaulay. I hope we can discuss this question of education, important as it is, as the very basis of all Indian life, without disparaging one whose name will long be held in high honour in this House as well as in India.

10.0 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: The Committee is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) for having stimulated a most interesting and I think important discussion. I must congratulate my hon. Friend on the exceedingly able and interesting speech which he made in support of the new Clause. He showed what an enthusiastic educationist he is and he also showed how heavily he feels the responsibility resting on every member of this Committee in regard to the Indian Constitution. I only wish that that sense of responsibility were shared by more hon. Members, in which case we should have better attended Debates. As I say, the speech of my hon. Friend was exceedingly eloquent, and he drew attention to a very important point. I do not share his willingness to try experiments in the lives and fortunes of 350,000,000 of His Majesty's subjects. He said he could view with equanimity the loss of 50,000,000 lives. I think that was the figure which he said would be necessary in order to arouse any sense of remorse at all in him. Apparently 49,000,000 could go to the shambles and my hon. Friend would not turn a hair. I cannot subscribe to that feeling in favour of grave experiment. The one thing in which my hon. Friend is not prepared to experiment, beyond a certain point is education. Personally I agree with all he said regarding
the importance of education to Indians.
My hon. Friend was answered by the First Commissioner of Works in an equally eloquent speech, the only defect of which was that it did not deal at all with the points made in favour of the new Clause. My right hon. Friend treated the Committee to an eloquent account of what he said in 1919 and how right he had been and how careful he had been to carry out his admirable and excellent principles in all parts of the British Empire over which he ever had control. We followed him in his peregrinations through the Colonies, and listened with great enjoyment and benefit to his account of the doctrines which he enunciated. But he made no attempt to answer the points made by the Mover of the Clause. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) also delighted the Committee with a very eloquent speech which did not deal at all with the points made by the hon. Member for Morpeth. Then we had the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) which was quite as irrelevant to the whole Debate as the speech of the First Commissioner of Works. But the reputation of Macaulay has as much to do with the subject raised by the hon. Member for Morpeth as the development of education in the Colonial Empire.
The hon. Member for Morpeth said there ought to be a safeguard in this Constitution in the case of an educational breakdown. If I understood him aright, he does not anticipate that this safeguard would ever have to be used—he does not suggest that in the least—but he says that when you are passing a Constitution into which you have put a number of safeguards on all vital matters, it is wrong and unwise not to have a safeguard in regard to education; and I am bound to say that I entirely agree with him. I regard this as a matter of moral responsibility. My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works is, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth, delighted to see the Indians making their educational experiments. The hon. Member for Morpeth does not mind the lives of 50,000,000 men being lost in experiments in law and order, and the First Commissioner of Works does not mind the educational careers of 50,000,000 children being blighted in the educational
experiments of the people of India. I certainly want to see neither 50,000,000 Indians massacred, nor the educational careers of 50,000,000 Indian children wrecked by injudicious educational experiments.
I think that what the hon. Member for Morpeth said is perfectly true, and I doubt if any hon. Member would contradict him when he said that the tendency of those experiments has been to sacrifice quality to quantity. I was amazed to hear the First Commissioner of Works refute his argument by saying that the number of girls who had entered schools had gone up by 100 per cent. That is exactly the gravamen of the charge, if charge it be, that was levied by the hon. Member for Morpeth, and that is the criticism that you hear by those who are very well qualified to speak on the subject. The danger is that in order to improve their statistics Indian Ministers may be sacrificing the real educational needs of the children, and in those circumstances the hon. Member for Morpeth asks the Committee to put a provision in the Bill under which, if affairs in any one Province get to a pass which amounts to a public scandal, the Secretary of State shall have power to step in. The Clause would not come into operation unless affairs did amount to a public scandal, and if affairs had got to that pitch, would my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works or any Member of His Majesty's Government deny that something would have to be done? What would they propose to do in these circumstances?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not see how recruiting a few men in England and sending them out to a Province is really going to help.

Viscount WOLMER: If my right hon. Friend had really addressed himself to the practical difficulties of dealing with the problem, I should have more sympathy with him, but I do not understand him to have admitted that the necessity for any such action ought to be considered in the Bill. It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth has suggested a very important remedy. After all, what is education divorced from personality, from the personality of the teachers and the education officers? The whole efficieny of your educational system depends on the men and women who are
administering it. Everybody admits that there has been educational failure in certain Provinces. How great that failure has been is no doubt a matter of difference of opinion, but nobody would deny that there have been cases of failure as well as cases of success. Where there has been a failure it has surely been due to the fact of putting people to do the job who are incompetent to do it, either because they are insufficiently paid, or because they are given classes which are too big for them to be able to control, or for some other such reason.
Therefore, when my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works asks how this Clause would help to deal with the situation, I reply that I do not think it would be a complete remedy, but it would be a very important step, and I think it is a step that certainly ought to be taken. As I was saying when my right hon. Friend interrupted me, this Clause would never come into operation unless there had been a really bad educational breakdown in any Province, and will any Member of the Committee deny that in such circumstances something ought to be done? The Under-Secretary of State will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, there is no provision in the Bill by which a state of affairs such as this new Clause contemplates can be dealt with. For instance, I do not suppose the Governor of a Province would declare that a state of emergency had arisen because all the children were being badly educated. You could not call it a state of emergency, but it might be a real scandal. You might, as my hon. Friend said, be inflicting an appalling injury on these children and on the whole constitutional future of India. If such a situation did arise, then I say that the Secretary of State or the Governor-General—personally, I should prefer the Governor-General to the Secretary of State—ought to have the power to step in.
After all, we come back to the old dilemma. If the necessity is not going to arise, what harm is there in inserting a Clause of this sort? The Clause would never come into operation unless the necessity arose, and if the necessity does arise, I say that you have no other provision to deal with it. Therefore, I hope the Government will give more sympathetic consideration to the proposal of my hon. Friend, and, if I may say so,
there is no more whole-hearted Conservative supporter of this Bill—there are not many of them—than my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth. He is, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion in regard to this Bill. He is a genuine friend of the Bill, he is a genuine friend of education, and he is obviously worried and alarmed. He thinks it is necessary that a safeguard should be put in against a possible breakdown. Will anyone here present deny the possibility of a breakdown? With the facts before them, who can deny the possibility of an educational breakdown in certain Provinces? That being the case, ought we not at any rate to have in reserve some power? This may not be the best method, but, if the Government will only admit the necessity of having some machinery, I am sure my hon. Friend will be ready to consider any plan better than his. At present the Bill has no provision of this sort, and I submit that that is a state of affairs to which we ought not to agree. As my hon. Friend said, the educational future of India is a matter of vital importance to the whole working of the Constitution, and it is certainly a subject on which we require safeguards as we do in regard to other matters.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: This has been a most provoking Debate. Perhaps first of all I might be allowed to deny that I wish to massacre 50,000,000 people. I have never before seen myself in the role of Moloch. I merely used that expression as perhaps a rather wild comparison, meaning that human life was perhaps of less importance than the cultural future of whole generations. I do make heavy weather of the subject. I think that it is a very serious subject, and if I have treated it seriously I really make no apology. My right hon. Friend said to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer): "What good would it do if the Secretary of State appointed a few people to a Province in a case of deterioration of the educational service?" I was amazed to hear that remark. One reason why education has worked so well under the reforms is that every Minister has had the loyal and capable support of his Director of Public Instruction who has been a member of the moribund Indian Educational Service.
If the right hon. Gentleman will give me four or five people of my own choosing in every Province, I will answer for the educational service in that Province. You need a capable Director of Public Instruction and three or four capable people to carry out his wishes. As the Noble Lord has said, the First Commissioner of Workes has not said what the verdict of the Government is on the Clause. I have a strong suspicion what that verdict would be, but I hope that he will inform the House as to it. I wish to protest very seriously and strongly against the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he is guilty of something approaching sentimentalism in his view. How many languages are taught in the primary school of India, and in how many of these languages is there sufficient literature to provide an adequate basis for a cultural education? In most cases instruction has to be given in a dead language, namely, Sanskrit. In primary schools you give instruction in the vernacular of the district, but beyond the stage of primary instruction you are almost forced to give instruction in English.
We are trying in India to impose on a whole mass of different races and languages a, system of education which is fundamentally Western, and I maintain that we have been perfectly right in trying to build up a class of people sufficiently imbued with our educational ideals to try to carry on that Western system. I beg my right hon. Friend not to sentimentalise too far about Indian culture and civilisation. I am convinced that if he studied it a little further he would find that he is relying on a broken reed. I beg the Government to give this matter their honest and sympathetic consideration. I regard it as one of the most fundamental importance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

10.11 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I did not want to say very much on the subject, but I had in the course of my service a great deal of experience of education, and I should like to make one or two comments on what has been said by various hon. Members. Over the greater part of India there was no system of education at all before the British Raj introduced it. The only education was education in
Sanskrit in certain centres for Brahmins, and there was a Mohammedan university. Those people who wanted to have children taught to read and write were the people who made their living by methods which required reading and writing, and three or four of these would club together and employ a teacher for their children. The Province I knew best was the Central Province, and it was remarkable how in the course of time people began to ask for primary schools. The children give up school at an early age and forget all they ever learned, and I well recollect stopping in a village where I had not been before and asking the people how many could read and write. They said, "About 14." I said, "How long have you had a school here?" They said, "Forty years." I said, "You must all have been at school." They said, "We have, but we have forgotten all that we learned."

The CHAIRMAN: I necessarily allowed this Debate to go a little wide, but I think that I must remind the hon. Member that we have a particular new Clause before the Committee, and up to the present his speech has had no reference to it.

Viscount WOLMER: Surely the working of education in India has as much to do with this new Clause as references to Macaulay?

The CHAIRMAN: But the Noble Lord will perhaps have heard me say on other occasions that if I have made a mistake

once, that is no reason why I should repeat it.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I will try and make a few remarks that will be in order. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) hoped that provision would be made in the Bill for recruiting the Service in the event of education seriously deteriorating or breaking down. It was with great reluctance, as a member of the Lee Commission, that I agreed to bring the All-India Education Service to an end, because I said that if you are introducing Western ideas and systems into India surely at no time do you more require teachers acquainted with the West to train the youth to benefit by those systems. Other considerations prevailed, however, and I have always thought it was a great pity that that Service was brought to an end. Undoubtedly there has been deterioration in education and in many respects the general standards have tended to fall. One aspect of that deterioration is shown by the fact that the people who want their sons and nephews to get employment are always in favour of lowering the standards of examinations, so that they may pass and get the qualifications for employment. They do not mind what the qualifications are so long as they can write after their names the magic letters which are the pass to employment.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 195.

Division No. 159.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Greene, William P. C.
Remer, John R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Carver, Major William H.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wragg, Herbert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Reid, David D. (Country Down)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Sir Basil Peto and Major Courtauld


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Bossom, A. C.
Christie, James Archibald


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Boulton, W. W.
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cleary, J. J.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Colman, N. C. D.


Assheton, Ralph
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cook, Thomas A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cooke, Douglas


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crooke, J. Smedley


Balniel, Lord
Burghley, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Banfield John William
Butler, Richard Austen
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Batey, Joseph
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Cross, R. H.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Daggar, George


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Rankin, Robert


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lawson, John James
Rea, Walter Russell


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leckle, J. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rickards, George William


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Liddall, Walter S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Salt, Edward W.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Loftus, Pierce C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lunn, William
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
McKeag, William
Spens, William Patrick


Grigg, Sir Edward
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Grimston, R. V.
Magnay, Thomas
Stones, James


Groves, Thomas E.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Storey, Samuel


Grundy, Thomas W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Harris, Sir Percy
Milne, Charles
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Milner, Major James
Sutcliffe, Harold


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Weymouth, Viscount


Jamieson, Douglas
Owen, Major Goronwy
White, Henry Graham


Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Patrick, Colin M.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pearson, William G.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Petherick, M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ker, J. Campbell
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.



Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Sir Walter Womersley.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of Franchise.)

A Provincial Legislature shall have the power to make a law amending the provisions of this Act for the purpose of extending the franchise to every person of the age of twenty-one years and upwards upon the sole basis of the residential qualification provided in this Act, and if at the expiration of ten years after the commencement of Part III of this Act a Provincial Legislature has failed to make suck a law His Majesty in Council may make provision accordingly.—[Major Milner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.27 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee will observe that the Clause is intended to give power to a provincial legislature to make a law amending the franchise provisions of the Bill so as to give, in effect, adult suffrage to the natives of India. The new Clause
further provides that, failing such a law being passed by a provincial legislature it shall be possible for His Majesty, by Order in Council to make provision accordingly. Most of us on this side of the Committee would be pressing the Government to confer adult suffrage upon the people of India if we thought that were practicable, but the great majority of us agree that at the present juncture that is not administratively practicable. I believe that it is practicable to have adult suffrage in the cities and larger towns, and I do not suppose that hon. Members who served with me on the Franchise Committee would disagree from me in that view. In India as a whole it is not possible at the moment. It might quite easily be possible within a very few years.
I would remind the Committee of the position which will exist under the Bill
as it is at present before the Committee. The Committee are aware that franchise is one of the things which come under the heading of constituent powers, and in Clause 285 the Government, while retaining sole power to deal with these matters, have made provision for the Federal legislature or a provincial legislature to pass resolutions recommending an Amendment of the provisions of the Bill or proposing that an address be presented to His Majesty asking that certain alterations should be made in those provisions. That does not meet the case at all. It should be within the power of a provincial legislature to make its own laws in this respect. A provincial legislature is well able—probably better able than the Imperial Parliament sitting in this country—to decide when it is administratively possible for the people in a Province to have adult suffrage. In our view, the question of administrative practicability affords the only ground of objection to adult suffrage.
At present the Provincial legislatures and the Provincial governments are the most likely people to know when it is practicable, and we argue that the Provincial legislature should have the power to pass a law bringing about adult suffrage in the Province. Particularly do we think that that should be so when we bear in mind that the power given in Clause 285 of the Bill would only permit alterations to be made in this respect after 10 years had passed. We think it may easily be practicable in some Provinces to have adult suffrage before that time, and we believe that the extended franchise, such as it is, to be conferred by this Bill, will conceivably inspire interest and enable Provincial governments to train their presiding officers and other election officials so that it may be possible, not only in the towns but elsewhere in some Provinces, to bring about adult suffrage within less than 10 years. Whether that be so or not, we think that the Provincial legislatures should have the power suggested in the Clause.
There is another feature of the Indian legislatures, both Federal and Provincial, as proposed in the Bill, which causes us some concern. We believe that they are likely to be reactionary, that they are likely to consist principally of representatives of vested interests, and that,
in the Federal Legislature at any rate, the Princes are likely to have an overwhelming power. We believe, therefore, that legislatures may possibly not be willing to extend the franchise and bring about adult suffrage as we should like to see it brought about, and so we provide in the Clause that, failing a Provincial legislature passing a law within 10 years providing what will be in effect adult suffrage, His Majesty in Council may make provision accordingly. I would point out that in both parts of the Clause the power is purely permissive. There is nothing binding about it, and in our submission the Clause is one which might advantageously be added to the Bill.
I do not know whether I need, in the House of Commons, labour the obvious advantages of adult suffrage, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not mind if I remind him of four reasons which were urged by himself and other members of the Franchise Committee in favour of adult suffrage. In the first place, I think we were all agreed that adult suffrage is the only way in which it is possible to get an absolute equality of political rights. Some of us have doubts, perhaps, as to whether even then absolute equality is obtained, but certainly adult suffrage does bring us as near as is humanly possible to such equality. That is the first reason why I hope that all of us may vote for the bringing about of adult suffrage in India at a comparatively early date.
The second reason is that adult suffrage is obviously the best means of ensuring the representation of the people of a, country as a whole. Thirdly, in India in particular, adult suffrage would solve what we all admit to be the difficult problem of securing representation of all the elements in that very varied population, whether those elements were rich or poor, men or women or the depressed classes or labour or any others. A form of adult suffrage would obviously bring about the best representation of every section of the community. Fourthly, adult suffrage would avoid the necessity that we all deplore in the circumstances in India at present of having fancy or special franchises for different sections of the community, for example, for women, for depressed classes, for labour and for other classes, such as we understand are
to be provided for in the Schedule on this matter.
For all these reasons, we urge this new Clause upon the Committee. I would further remind the Committee that adult suffrage has been for some years past in force with considerable success in Ceylon, where it is possible for any adult over the age of 21 to apply to be put on to the register of electors. We are not asking that that state of affairs should be brought about in India to-morrow, but that the Indian Legislature should have the power, when it believes it to be possible, useful and desirable, to bring such a change about and should have the power to pass a law to that effect, and that failing such a law being passed at the expiration of 10 years His Majesty in Council should bring about such a change. I sincerely commend what we on these benches regard as a very important Clause to the attention of the Committee.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I regret that I cannot subscribe to the shouts of "Agreed" in support of this particular Clause. I understand the importance which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite attach to the opportunity which should be given to Provincial Legislatures to introduce adult suffrage in what might be, under this Clause, the immediate future. I appreciate the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), with whom I travelled round India to consider this very subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that the Franchise Committee reported categorically against the introduction of adult suffrage, in the immediate future, at any rate, and they envisaged the lapsing of a certain amount of time, and did not see that it would be possible to introduce adult suffrage into India in a time which one could reasonably measure. In view of that finding, I think that the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me that he is rather optimistic in suggesting that the Government would be able to accept the new Clause, which he has so ably moved to-night. At the same time, I agree with him, that the subject is of great importance, and I will address myself to his arguments as expeditiously as I can.
The reasons which he gave in favour of adult suffrage were certainly good ones. One of our chief difficulties in India has been to frame all these very different franchises in order to try and achieve equality of treatment for the different communities and types of voter, the poor and the rich in town and country, and to establish a balance between all these. That has been one of the greatest difficulties in framing the elaborate franchise which we have framed at the present stage at a certain level. But there is a very great difference between the franchise we propose, which would enfranchise 35,000,000 people, and the franchise proposed by this new Clause, which would enable any Provincial Legislature in the almost immediate future, on the establishment of Provincial Autonomy, of its own volition to set up a franchise which if it were applied to the whole population of India would cover an adult population of 130,000,000.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment for the following reasons. In the first place, it would be contrary to the decision of the Joint Select Committee with regard to what are known as constituent powers. Those are powers to amend the present Constitution. On the advice of the Joint Select Committee we have inserted Clause 285 which gives to any Provincial Legislature after the passage of 10 years the opportunity of making representations to the Home Government on particular subjects, one of which would be the qualifications entitling persons to be registered as voters for the purpose of elections. After 10 years, therefore, a Provincial Legislature if it was so minded could make a representation to the Home Government on this matter and the Secretary of State would be under a statutory obligation to consider the matter and take action or to lay his reasons for not taking action before Parliament.
The hon. and gallant Member referred to the last few words of the new Clause. Let me remind him that the substance of the last few words, to which he attached importance, is already met in the Bill in Clause 285 (4). If His Majesty in Council decided to take action on the lines suggested in Clause 285 (4) it would be necessary to apply to the Provincial governments concerned or to the Government of India, as is provided for in Sub-section
(i) of the proviso to that Clause. The substance of what hon. Members desire in the latter part of their Clause is already inserted as a general power in the Bill where it may happen to be necessary. What they desire in the early part of the Clause would, we think, be unsound. We think that, apart from these Constitutional arguments, to allow a Provincial Legislature to introduce adult suffrage in the immediate future would be extremely inadvisable. We think that it would be beyond the limits of administrative practicability to poll these large numbers in the immediate future. As it is, in our scheme we have extended the franchise to the limits of practicability. In each case we have carefully consulted the Provincial governments as to how far they are able to go. If hon. Members will refer to the report of the Franchise Committee in the Chapter which deals with adult suffrage they will see on pages 16 and 17 set out at length the administrative possibilities under present conditions for the polling of voters in India.
To sum up in a few words, the problem amounts to this, that to poll voters efficiently it is essential to have properly qualified presiding officers, apart from polling clerks, to conduct elections properly. At the same time it is essential to man the polling stations with proper polling clerks. We made exhaustive examination in India as to the number of presiding officers who would be available in particular districts and Provinces, and the Franchise Committee came to the conclusion that, quite apart from the problem of polling Hindu and Moslem voters on separate days, which would be necessary, it would be impossible in India to poll more than 25,000,000 in one day, and even that would entail the dislocation of some of the ordinary business of government in administration. Referring to the large figure that I gave of the adult population that would have to be enfranchised if adult sufferage were introduced, it would be become impossible to envisage in the immediate future an expeditious or efficient election on the basis of adult sufferage with the present administrative machine in India and with the presiding officers available.

Major MILNER: You can do it in six days.

Mr. BUTLER: If you had to set aside separate days for polling different sections of the community, it might be necessary to double that number of days, and if the hon. and gallant Members refers to the report of the Franchise Committee he will see that if an election is to take six days it means that some of the administrative work will have to be suspended, as some of the officers will have to act as presiding officers in the election. It must also be remembered that long distances in India have to be travelled, and the question of distance combined with time and numbers really makes it impossible to poll the whole population of India in the immediate future. There is also the difficulty of manning the polling stations with police. In India it is essential to avoid any communal trouble on polling day, and if polling takes place on different days the polling stations will have to be manned by the police. The Franchise Committee found that the same round figure of 25,000,000 was the maximum which could be polled under the present police arrangements. There is also the difficulty of polling the women, getting them into the booths. For all these administrative difficulties, the Government are obliged to consider the new Clause as unacceptable. The concluding argument is that it would be unwise to jump at one stage from the present proposed franchise to the immediate prospect of adult suffrage. If it is going to come, it is much better that it should come after Indians have had experience and gained a knowledge of the use and the value of the vote, and after we have overcome some of the problems connected with illiteracy. For these reasons, the Government are unable to accept a proposal which hon. Members opposite regard as somewhat important.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not dispute the many practical difficulties in regard to adult suffrage, but some of the arguments of the Under-Secretary of State were rather fallacious. Take his last argument that you should give time for Indians to learn the use of the vote. You cannot learn the use of the vote unless you have the vote, and if you are going to disfranchise a large proportion of the population whether for six or seven or 10 years, they will not have learnt how
to use the vote at the end of that period. It is foolish to say that all the elections should take place on one day. That does not happen now. An election takes a fortnight or three weeks in Assam, and it is only recently that we in this country have polled on one day. That is not a final argument. I agree that at the present moment it is difficult in most Provinces, not in all, to introduce adult suffrage, but the Under-Secretary has missed the point of the proposal. It is this. You are making arrangements for certain sections of the population to have a vote, for certain special sections to have a vote, women, labour and the depressed classes, but there are large sections, like the landless labourers in the rural areas, who will not have a vote.
The people who are not going to have the vote are the most defenceless, from the economic point of view, in the whole community; and we have a responsibility, in giving any advance in self-government in seeing whom we are going to place in control, and what is going to happen to these people whose economic position renders them defenceless. You are going to hand over the vote to a section of the community and if you hand it over without any provision for a future advance of the franchise I think it is very unlikely that there will be any advance, in view of the conditions in India. I want to see some direct incentive to the local governments to take steps for making provisions for polling a much larger number. They must envisage the possibility in the near future of adult suffrage. I want us to have the power here, so that if it is not done we can step in—so that we can say we have not relinquished all power in respect of these people so far as the vote is concerned and that we can give them protection; and that if they are not given the vote within a certain period of time by the Provincial Governments this House will step in and give them the vote. We might have a device similar to that used in the United States at one time, whereby the States lost a, certain amount of their voting power at the centre if they did not enfranchise a certain proportion of their population. As this thing stands at present we are just passing a Bill enfranchising a certain section, and leaving out of account a very large body of people who are the most helpless and whom we ought not to leave without some protection.

10.53 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I am not surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) did not refer to one very important element of this Clause, which is as to what would be the cost of polling 130,000,000 people instead of 35,000,000. It is quite evident that one of the principal objections to the whole of this proposal is the enormous cost which it would entail to the Government of India. The Under-Secretary did not give us any idea of what the extra cost would be, although I have no doubt that the Committee must have gone into that question when they considered adult suffrage.

Mr. BUTLER: There are specimens at the end of the Franchise Committee's report.

Sir B. PETO: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us what the cost of this proposal is, for it is very important that we should know. There is another reason why it is surprising that this Clause should be put forward from the Opposition benches. On every other occasion when there has been a question of a safeguard which involves a special intervention of the Governor-General, and still more when there has been any proposal to maintain the control of this House over any of the affairs of India, Members opposite have always been vocal in denouncing any such proposal. Now, when we come to the question of adult suffrage, they suggest that if progress under the Constitution we are setting up does not proceed sufficiently rapidly in certain, directions to satisfy them then the whole matter should be dealt with by Order in Council here. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it is right to do this in the matter of the franchise why is it not right in all the other matters in which hon. Members opposite have always taken precisely the opposite view?
There was another thing which the hon. Members opposite did not mention and that was whether the people of India would be better off financially or socially, or whether they would be better governed should they all have the vote. I do not see how it is going to alter the representation between one party and another, between the Moslems and those of other religions, or between one section of the
community and another. What you do have at present is some guarantee that voters, or a reasonable proportion of them, will be able to read enough to know whom they are voting for and will not have to do it merely by painted signs and things of that kind. Until education has proceeded a good deal further you would have wholly illiterate voters, and I have not heard any argument that the total result would produce any material difference, or do the people of India any material good. I have referred to the question of expense. To carry out this proposal in that vast country, holding such a gigantic number of people, attempting to do what has never been done before in this world—nothing approaching it has ever been done—to do that is one of the most absurd proposals I have ever heard put forward.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken is an extraordinary one as coming from a representative in an elected Chamber. The argument, I understood, was that it does not really matter to India how many people exercise the vote.

Sir B. PETO: I was in this House for many years representing 10,000 voters. They altered the electorate to 45,000, and I am still here.

Mr. BEVAN: I should have thought that if we are about to extend self-government of India, self-government must be government by the Indians. It cannot be by anyone else. We have heard the Under-Secretary state that if this proposal were universally adopted throughout India 130,000,000 Indians would be governing themselves, instead of 35,000,000. I should have thought that if the principle of self-government is a good principle and is contained in this Bill, this Clause is one that ought to be included in the Bill. But I do not want to follow the hon. Member any further. I wish to address myself to the Under-Secretary's statement. The only argument that he advanced against the Clause was that it was impracticable. Surely the Provincial Legislatures themselves are going to be the persons to determine whether the proposals are practicable or not. I would like to quote the report of the Franchise Committee which was mentioned
by the Under-Secretary. On page 21 we find this:
It will then be for the Legislatures themselves, after a definite period has passed, to determine at what pace the electorate should be extended and the date when they may wish to introduce adult suffrage.
That is the only proposal which is contained in the new Clause.

It being Eleven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Orders of the Day — RHYL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order).

Order for Third Reading read. [King's Consent signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

11.1 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I desire to raise a matter of some importance with regard to the Clauses inserted in Private Bills. An explanation is due to the House of why this matter is being raised at this stage on this Bill. It is because of a misapprehension on the part of myself and some of my hon. Friends as to the method by which we should proceed when the Bill came down for consideration after it had been before the Standing Committee on Unopposed Bills upstairs. There are two Clauses in the Bill, Nos. 50 and 68, which are, in themselves, good Clauses. One of them deals or is intended to deal with a case in which a forecourt of a building is left in a dangerous position and there is a question as to how that matter can be put right with due regard to the protection of the public. Clauses are frequently inserted in Private Bills to provide that a local authority may take steps to ensure that forecourts are fenced in order to make certain that the safety of the population is protected. Unfortunately, the Clause as drafted in this Bill goes further than that and proposes to provide
that as regards any forecourt where goods are offered for sale, and forecourts in which goods are exhibited, there is to be power in the local authority to provide for the fencing of the part of the forecourt in which the goods are displayed, wholly irrespective—and this is the mischief which has crept into an otherwise admirable Clause—of whether the exhibition of the goods for sale in the forecourt happens to be a danger to the people in the neighbourhood or not.
I should not be doing what I think is my duty to the House if I did not state that according to the report of the Committee on Unopposed Bills, a Clause of this kind in recent times and according to recent precedents is usually accepted and passed. Some of us who have been examining these more or less common form Clauses have come to the conclusion that, without intending to go beyond the necessities of the case, the drafting of these Clauses is such as to need further examination if the protection of owners of premises, as well as of the public at large is born in mind. It would not be in order to suggest a perfectly simple method by which this Clause might be amended, but perhaps I may be permitted to say that there were upon the Order Paper certain Amendments which we suggested and which we have taken the trouble to communicate to the promoters of the Bill.
Perhaps I may now say a word or two with regard to Clause 68. Here again is a Clause which is perfectly sound in what it seeks to do. It is aimed at the preservation of amenities in a neighbourhood—which is something with which, I suppose, in view of recent developments in the countryside and in our towns, the whole House would agree—by making provision with regard to erections in forecourts which are really and truly a blot upon the landscape. Here again, without, I am sure, it having been thought out and intended by the promoters, the Clause goes too far and is drafted in such wide terms that the exhibition by a newsagent of the placards of an evening newspaper would, I submit, be an offence, if the Clause were passed in its present form. In addition to that, if the owner of the premises put up a notice to say that there was going to be a public meeting of some political party in which he happened to be interested, or if he merely put up a notice regarding
his own trade, indicating, for example, that there was to be in the neighbourhood some particular form of activity, he might be committing an offence under this Clause.
Here, again, I ought to make it plain that the Clause has been put in its present form into quite a number of Private Bills in the course of the last few years. I want the House clearly to understand that. It is a matter which has only recently been brought to my attention, but I am told that although the Clause has been passed in this form, nevertheless it has never been enforced by any of the local authorities which have obtained it. I think it is not a sound thing that this House should pass legislation which is never enforced in any locality. One of the difficulties which arises in this matter is due to the fact that there is, apparently, no systematised attempt to introduce into the House from time to time an amending Bill dealing with public health generally. The result is that time and again, when local authorities come to this House for additional powers, they take these extra powers in the form of Clauses which have gone into other local Acts of Parliament, when perhaps, if they were proposed in the form of an amending Bill to the Public Health Acts, we should get an opportunity of having the matter considered by a Standing Committee upstairs, when the drafting of these things would be open to rather severer criticism than they get at present. The Committee on Unopposed Bills at present pays attention to the form of these matters, but there are some of us in the House who think that we might, perhaps, contribute from time to time something useful with regard to the actual drafting.
I might add one other thing in conclusion. I regret that this question should have arisen with regard to a Bill where there were other questions that arose and where the promoters met us in the frankest possible way in order that we might look to get a perfectly workmanlike piece of drafting. One has no views at all about any particular local authority. These Clauses, or one of them, may conceivably be discussed on another Bill with regard to which there is already a Motion on the Order Paper, but, having regard to the fact that these two Clauses do seem to impinge very seriously on the liberty of the subject, and to go beyond
what I believe is really the intention of the local authority which has introduced them, the only method by which the matter can be raised at all is by raising the motion that we raise this evening, which formally, at all events for the present, is the rejection of the Motion for the Third Reading.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I beg to second the Amendment.
In a sentence or two I would like to add one or two observations. Section 50, which is the first to which my hon. and learned Friend made reference, goes a great deal wider, in my judgment, than is necessary for the protection of the amenities about which this Bill is introduced, because it provides that:
In any case in which the forecourt of any premises adjoining a street is a source of danger, obstruction or inconvenience to the public, or in which any steps or projection are or is placed in such forecourt or any goods are placed therein whether for sale or not, the Council may require the owner of the premises well and sufficiently to fence such forecourt from the street.
In our judgment, and I think the House will agree, that means that if any tradesman in the borough of Rhyl desired to expose for sale any article of merchandise, he could be called upon at once, in a somewhat arbitrary manner by the local authority, to fence his forecourt from the street."
Clause 68, the other Clause of which my hon. and learned Friend made mention, would make it an offence to have exhibited any one of the signs that we have just seen in the forecourt of Westminster Hospital. It seems impossible under this Clause to have any placard or bill, or inducement of any sort or kind, however innocuous it may be, in the premises of the ratepayers of Rhyl in future, a departure in the functions of local authorities clearly wider than ever has been the case before, and making a great inroad on the proper enjoyment of the rights and liberties of the ratepayers in Rhyl. While realising the way in which the promoters of the Bill met those of us who had objections to other Clauses, we do feel that these two are really objectionable. They go to a far greater extent than either the promoters in fact intended, or than is necessary for the protection of the proper amenities of the borough.

11.14 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Captain Bourne): As Chairman of the Unopposed Bills Committee before whom this Bill came, I think I ought to offer one or two observations. In the first place I would like to point out to the House that this Bill contains many other provisions, some of which are of very great importance to the urban district of Rhyl, and, speaking as one on whom this House has placed a very considerable responsibility for the conduct of private business, I think it is my duty to advise the House that whether they like or dislike the particular Clauses to which the hon. and learned Members call attention, it would not be fair on the promoters of the Bill to reject it because of these Clauses. As the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) has said, these two Clauses have been common form in many Bills that have been introduced into this House since 1925. The object of Clause 50 is to prevent forecourts being unprotected, and a danger to the public. I am not prepared to say that the wording of that Clause is perfect. The object of Clause 68 is to prevent the erection in a forecourt of something which might be objectionable to the amenities of the place. I would like to remind the House that in the case of Rhyl, which is a small town on the Welsh coast and which depends very largely for its prosperity on tourist traffic during the holiday season, it is a matter of some importance that the amenities of the town should be preserved, and that offensive things should not be permitted to be placed in the forecourts of occupied houses. It may be that the position is hard in the case of certain individuals, but in those cases we must look to the benefit of the district as a whole. If the district loses its tourist traffic, every individual suffers, and the individual must be prepared to make sacrifices for the common good.
The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater and the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) said that this Clause might be used to prevent legitimate trading. I must admit that if I were sitting on a bench of magistrates and had to consider what was legitimate under Clause 55 or this Clause, I should find it difficult to reconcile the two. The object of Clause 68, and
the evidence given by the promoters went to show that it was meant to deal with certain forms of exhibitions, such as photographers' stands, or, what is more often the case, stalls put up in fore courts where a crowd might gather in a narrow street and interfere with the general convenience, or where often the contents of the stalls might be offensive, or be in close proximity to the sea front and be likely to injure the general prosperity of the district. The last Public Health Act to which the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater referred was passed in 1925. There has been no real consolidation of the law as exemplified by Clauses put in various private Acts since that date, and the drafting of a lot of these Clauses is not in itself satisfactory. The Unopposed Bills Committee has at my instigation amended a great many of them. We have not been at all satisfied with the wording in many cases, and we feel that if no Public Health Bill is forthcoming in the immediate future—and I believe that is the case—it is time that these Clauses should be overhauled, that they should be considered, that the drafting should be considered, and the relation of the Clauses the one to the other should be considered; and that for local legislation Clauses in Private Bills there should be something resembling a model Bill such as exists in the case of gas, water and other provisions in ordinary private Bill legislation. Unfortunately, the Lord Chairman has been unable, for domestic reasons, to attend another place for some little time, and it has not, been possible for the Chairman of Ways and Means and myself to consult him in this matter. But I am prepared now, on behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means and myself, to give an undertaking that we will consult the Lord Chairman at the earliest possible moment, to see if we cannot set up a small technical committee to consider the drafting of these Clauses, the relation of these Clauses one to another, and to make a report which will produce a model Bill of local legislation Clauses to be incorporated in the Private Bills promoted by local authorities in future.
I think I ought to warn the House that it may not be possible to set the committee to work before the autumn,
for the reason that those on whose advice we most largely rely, that is to say, Government Departments who are interested in Private Bill legislation, those who promote Private Bills, and above all, the counsel of the Lord Chairman and the counsel of yourself, and the Members of this House who take a great interest in. Private Bill work, are at this moment up to their eves in private Bills, and I do not think it would be practicable to undertake what will be rather a heavy job until the present pressure of Private Bill legislation is over, and that is bound to take a little time. We have rather a large number of these Bills this Session. But I am prepared to promise my hon. Friends that we will consult with the Lord Chairman and see whether something on those lines cannot be done at the earliest possible moment. I fully agree, after having had some four years' experience as Chairman of the Unopposed Bills Committee, that the drafting of a lot of these Clauses does require attention, and I think it would be for the general benefit of our Private Bill legislation if what I have suggested could be done. After these observations I hope that my hon. Friends will not feel bound to proceed with their opposition.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On behalf of my hon. and learned Friends who have moved and seconded the Amendment, I want to say how exceedingly grateful we are to the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means for the constructive and statesmanlike speech he has made to-night. During the last two or three years a number of us have been examining with such care as other occupations permit the Private Bill legislation, because we felt that the general law of the land should not be altered for the reason that a Clause in a particular Bill casually become law and then later is copied in subsequent Bills, and ultimately what is intended for one corporation becames the general law of the land, without this House really effectively considering the change that was being made. In that way the liberties of the subject may be whittled away, and on a number of occasions some of us who have been associated together, and perhaps have rather identified ourselves together, have been definitely pursuing a, campaign for safeguarding the liberty of the subject as we
see it, a not unworthy purpose at this time, when the liberty of the subject is not much cherished in other lands. There may be differences of opinion from time to time as to whether a particular thing conflicts or not with the liberty of the subject, but the underlying principle is certainly one worthy of consideration.
It seems to me that the proposal of the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means offers a solution, in part at least, of the situation with which we are faced as regards this rather muddled mass of local legislation, which can even be passed without the knowledge of the town councils concerned. I recall a Bill which was promoted by a corporation, and which contained two Clauses that I did not like. I drew the attention of the town clerk to them, local people got excited, and eventually they were dropped. Not one member of the town council to whom I spoke was conscious of the fact that the Clauses were in the Bill, they all argued that they were nonsense and were glad to have them dropped.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: You saved the situation there.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Certainly, and not for the first time. The suggestion made
by the Deputy-Chairman is one of the greatest value, and in the circumstances it would be only fitting that we should not proceed with our opposition to the Bill, and we shall have to consider with great care whether or not we should persist in pressing our Amendment to another Bill. I understand that it is the intention of my hon. and learned Friend to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: In view of the statement which has been made by the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.